home

Austin Pilot's Reported Suicide Note: IRS Purposely Targeted

NPR has the purported suicide note of Joseph Stack, believed to be the pilot who crashed a plane into the Austin, TX office building housing the IRS.

< Bernie Kerik Sentenced to 4 Years in Prison, Voluntary Surrender Granted | President Obama in Denver Today, Medical Marijuana Groups to Protest >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    No reported deaths yet, just two injuries, one (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Angel on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    serious with that person being airlifted to San Antonio's burn hospital.  I read the diatribe, he sounds like he was mentally unstable and exceedingly angry.  

    I read it too... (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 01:55:01 PM EST
    found myself agreeing with some of his sentiments...especially his take on what passes for free market capitalism in this country.

    The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

    Obviously there is no excuse for the terrible thing he's done...but this system of ours seems to have driven him mad.  And if these systems of ours don't drive you at least a little bit mad, you're probably the craziest of all.

    And he doesn't sound like your typical wingnut teabagger to me.  Anti-government?  For sure, in spades.  Angry?  Confused? Defeated? You betcha.  But he was ragging on Bush and corporate greed and stuff we lefties like to rag about...not your usual teabagger material.

    It's terrible he thought a violent suicide that put others at risk was the answer...what a shame.

    Parent

    Well, he set his own house on fire then got in the (none / 0) (#10)
    by Angel on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    plane and flew into the building that housed some IRS employees.  If you want to kill yourself please leave everyone else out of it.  

     

    Parent

    Ummm... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:10:10 PM EST
    I agree.

    It's terrible he thought a violent suicide that put others at risk was the answer...what a shame.


    Parent
    you and CNNs Rick Sanchez (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:27:34 PM EST
    seem to agree that since he didnt like Bush it instantly disqualifies him as being a teabagger.

    you do know that the teabaggers uniformly hate Bush, right?

    Parent

    Other reasons too... (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:32:16 PM EST
    part of the screed seems sympathetic to communism...hardly a trait of teabaggers.  Like I said in the Wed. thread when you posted this story...part of it sounds like a god damn Eugene V. Debs speech...the furthest thing from teabaggers.

    The only real teabagger type stuff is the IRS-hate...and most everybody got no love for the IRS, right and left alike.

    Parent

    I dont think you have (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:36:07 PM EST
    a good idea what the teabaggers are "against"

    you said this:

    And he doesn't sound like your typical wingnut teabagger to me.  Anti-government?  For sure, in spades.  Angry?  Confused? Defeated? You betcha.  But he was ragging on Bush and corporate greed and stuff we lefties like to rag about...not your usual teabagger material.

    thats just wrong.  it is exactly teabagger material.


    Parent

    You must think... (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:42:55 PM EST
    I'm a teabagger then...I'm generally anti-government, our systems make me kinda angry when I let them, corporate greed and rigged markets make me sick...I'm sure as hell confused and defeated.  And the IRS?  Well, I haven't gotten my return yet so let me get back to ya on them.

    I could be this dude if I didn't have a knack for seeing past the bullsh*t to the fun and joys of life...and not having a violent in my body...but then again everybody has got their breaking point.

    Parent

    I am just telling (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:45:14 PM EST
    you what they preach.  its not all anti Obama.
    I wouldnt call you names my friend but I do wonder some times.

    (just kidding)

    Parent

    I wonder too... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:58:38 PM EST
    I woulda went to a tea party if I thought there would be more stoners in attendance...I'm on the same page on some sh*t, but I tend to think they're pikers who know not of what they say they want.  Half of 'em are on the teet they claim to despise.

    Parent
    teabaggers and the desperate... (none / 0) (#81)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:01:14 PM EST
    ...have a lot in common.

    Parent
    I only saw (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:38:27 PM EST
    one sentence that was sort of not teabaggerish.
    I dont want to go back into the nasty thing but it was something about people dying while the government does nothing.

    but it was pretty vague in its progressiveness.


    Parent

    CH, can you tell us more about your (none / 0) (#47)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:44:01 PM EST
    understanding of the teabagger creed? I mean, without just quoting kdog's comments against him.

    Parent
    anti government (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:46:33 PM EST
    anti tax.  anti IRS.  anti social programs.  anti gay.  anti black.  

    am I forgetting anything?

    Parent

    OK, that's a short list... (none / 0) (#104)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:18:24 PM EST
    For the record, Joseph Stack's note/letter says NOTHING about being anti-social programs, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-woman, etc.

    Long story short, he doesn't appear to have a socio-political conservative agenda. He hates the prevailing tax structure, but aside from the Wall Street hogs and their enabling pols, who doesn't?

    Parent

    You have proof the tea partys (none / 0) (#106)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:19:02 PM EST
    are anti gay and anti black, correct?

    Parent
    A summary (none / 0) (#6)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 01:56:24 PM EST
    The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

    The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.



    Parent
    Damn crazee wingnut teabaggers. (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:21:52 PM EST
    Wow ! really! (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by star on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:48:06 PM EST
    have read that note fully? I doubt tea baggers have communist leanings,nor are they anti organized religion.. quite the contrary actually. the only shared idea is the hatred for IRS.. But then they are disliked by left and right alike I would think..

    At the risk of being shouted at here.. i feel he sounds more progressive than tea partier..but ultimately a very disturbed person who should have got some help before it got to this point. Thankfully his family got out alive from the burning house.

    Parent

    Sorry, I was living up to my moniker. (none / 0) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    And quoting another poster.

    Parent
    A little disturbing (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:37:50 PM EST
    to realize that note sounds like the typical rantings I hear from guys I work with. Something tells me there was more going on there than what is in the letter.

    You're telling me... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    Imagine how I feel...as I was reading I'm thinking "I've said sh*t like that on TL"...talk about scary.

    Parent
    It's frightening to agree with (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:53:08 PM EST
    the dude who just flew the airplane into the building!  But if he was a Conservative....he hasn't been any better represented than I have in years.  They are all bought and paid for whores now!  They represent no people

    Parent
    that's like (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by CST on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:54:53 PM EST
    watching the Iranian President on Larry King.  I found myself nodding a lot.  Until they brought up Israel that is.  Some people just have crazy spots.

    The difference is how we deal with these thoughts, and the level of hate in them.  There is a difference between being fed up and disgusted with something, vs. hating it.  It's the hate that makes people resort to violence - and pushes them over the edge from "disgruntled" to "nutcase/terrorist/whatever-you-wanna-call-this-guy-and-other-crazy-people".  I bet there is at least one thing in that note you wouldn't say: "violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer" - and that makes all the difference.

    Parent

    War (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    The Civil War. Was there another way? I hate slaveowners. It's a reasonable response, I think, hating slaveowners. One could reasonably say violence was the only answer.

    How do you define slavery? Sometimes violence is committed so slowly, its victims don't realize they've been violated.

    Parent

    I thought about war (none / 0) (#158)
    by CST on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:13:21 PM EST
    after I posted that.  In some cases I do find war necessary (although there have certainly been more than a few pointless ones).  I don't really have an answer to that.

    I guess one difference is that in war, it's not just some lone person with a gripe.  It's an entire group that manages to convince a large number of people that violence is the only way to solve that gripe.  And in the case of war, it's also very important to have a plan to actually fix that gripe if you win, otherwise it is just meaningless violence.

    Parent

    Osama too... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    I've found myself nodding along with that psycho in spurts.

    You summed up the difference quite well...well said.

    Parent

    I don't think that being pissed off (none / 0) (#161)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:17:23 PM EST
    with a government that is failing its people makes someone crazy - flying a plane into a building makes someone crazy.

    Parent
    Unfortunately, that is also the mentality (none / 0) (#200)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:35:31 PM EST
    of the Neo-cons and it informs too much of our 'foreign policy', past, present, and future. When any nation state assumes that stance, the consequences are exponentially more catastrophic than an individual acting alone.  Responding to:
    "violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer"


    Parent
    possibly (none / 0) (#66)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:52:52 PM EST
    but you are not flying a plane into a government building.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:46:40 PM EST
    Ever know anyone leaving "stuff out" of their last letter though?

    Parent
    I meant more along the lines of (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:55:31 PM EST
    mental/emotional instability leading to the extreme rage.  I guess you could say that about anyone that commits suicide in this way.

     

    Parent

    He does mention a big (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    not clearly defined debate in his head. That can happen to you without some talkleft :)

    Parent
    ha - or even with some! (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:06:12 PM EST
    I read the note (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:45:33 PM EST
    That isn't a note from someone fed up with the IRS. That is a note from someone fed up with no politicians, who are the leaders who are creating the fabric of our society, representing the people in any way, shape, or form.  This is a note from someone protesting taxation without representation and declaring that that is tyranny and kaboom.

    Would you call him... (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    a teabagger MT, based on the screed?  I ain't seeing it.

    I mean, imo, its absolutely true that in practice, if not theory, we do have taxation with no representation.  We do have a brand of tyranny.  Mild compared to other brands in the world...but tyranny none the less.  And nothing breeds violent reactions from short fuses like tyranny.

    Parent

    I didn't find anything that (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:56:29 PM EST
    reflected teabagger in particular either.  Just voiceless and seeing no other viable solutions to being heard other than the final unable to ignore goodbye.

    Parent
    'no taxation without representation' (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    is the basic Boston Tea Party principle, right? That's why the current teapartiers cal themselves teapartiers.

    Parent
    grrrr (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    the current version has representation...

    I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, just expressing my frustration.

    Parent

    Understand! (none / 0) (#92)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:07:03 PM EST
    I also am not saying it makes any sense!

    Parent
    Representation? (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:19:23 PM EST
    What's that?  And where do I get some?

    Parent
    Jacoby & Myers? (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:31:04 PM EST
    Classic... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    reminds me of the Beasties Shadrach...well played sir.

    More Adidas sneakers than a plumber got pliers,
    Got more suits that Jacoby & Meyers

    Gonna have to listen to that record when I get home..it always makes me laugh and smile.

    Parent

    You my friend might have to do some (none / 0) (#124)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:31:54 PM EST
    district shopping!

    Parent
    Whose the rep... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    for the lunar district?

    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:04:30 PM EST
    I begin to understand the "teabagger" distraction

    in the original comment in the other thread I said this:

    but a crazee wingnut teabagger crashed a plane into a irs office in texas.

    do excuse my hyperbole.  its hard to believe that one little statement in another thread caused all this consternation.

    FINE

    he is not a teabagger (although they will probably embrace him) he IS a terrorist.

    I hope that clears that up and we can, as they say, move on.


    Parent

    I'm sure we will find out (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    from the upcoming days of wall to wall media saturation...if he ever went to a Tea Party event, we will know about it.

    Parent
    He spec'd the IRS (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:50:03 PM EST
    watch and see if he doesn't have a tax problem.

    Parent
    Hopefully (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    Otherwise he is just a MT kdog lovechild who had too much caffeine this morning.

    Parent
    That child... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:04:02 PM EST
    would lead the revolution for sure! lol

    Parent
    Now... (none / 0) (#76)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:57:44 PM EST
    ...there's something to ponder!!!  Hope that thought doesn't haunt my dreams tonight...  :)

    Parent
    Scary huh? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:00:59 PM EST
    No (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:53:01 PM EST
    Desperatism, if it must be -ismed.

    since the racist (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:06:46 PM EST
    elements of any given tea party rally are too easy to find, here's a summary of the anti-gay elements.

    everyone who reads this blog (none / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    knows that. why waste your time.  its like peeing into the wind.


    Parent
    Sending a message (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 07:15:30 PM EST
    as in, when the Allies intentionally targeted civilians in WWII, in order to induce the population to overthrow Hitler. Of course, the Germans did it too.

    King David Hotel, anyone?

    Lone survivalist nuts with a grudge against the world and a-rab mooslims (not borned in this country), didnt just invent terrorism teen years ago.

    freakin white house (4.33 / 3) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:01:04 PM EST
    White House: Texas Plane Crash `Does Not Appear' to Be Terrorism

    exactly what would you call it when some nut flys a plane into a building on purpose?
    I am sick of their tiptoeing around and pandering to the crazees.
    this was an act of domestic terrorism.  
    tell the damn truth.  for once.

    I don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:07:13 PM EST
    I prefer this to automatically assuming its terrorism.  I mean it only happened a few hours ago.

    Don't get me wrong, it appears to be the case...but whats the harm in investigating first before raising the terror alert to magenta.

    Parent

    The note is populist ... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:27:15 PM EST
    but it doesn't profess a right wing agenda. Imo, it does contain legitimate grievances, which may understandably get lost in the hullabaloo.

    Parent
    Yeah well (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:05:26 PM EST
    so did Mohammed Atta et al, your legitimate greivances tend to matter a bit less when you try to commit and/or succed in commiting mass murder.

    Parent
    as did the 9/11 (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    hijackers for that matter

    Parent
    Huh???? (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:21:44 PM EST
    You gotta be kidding.

    Parent
    about what (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    the 9/11 hijackers having legitimate grievances.

    absolutely not.  try reading some history of the middle ease.


    Parent

    Who doesn't have legit grievances... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:34:09 PM EST
    in a world so farked up it ain't even funny?  Of course the muslim whackjobs have legit grievances like everybody else.

    The trick is not to let your grievances get the better of ya to where you yourself start to cause grief for others...first do no harm, thats the key.  

    Parent

    I think that you (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:00:34 PM EST
    are unknowingly providing an alibi. I mean if we use every old bad thing that happened I think maybe the English have a lot to answer for to us Scot Irish.

    Parent
    Um they (none / 0) (#140)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:43:02 PM EST
    had legitimate concerns- most of their justifications were jihadist ravings but some were based in entirely understandable anger- however, as I said in my comment- they lost any and all validity when they decided to commit mass murder.

    Parent
    BUT the problems that led (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:26:12 PM EST
    to their radicalization largely haven't gone away and that is largely because people do what you're doing which is to basically discount the problems because some idiot chose to commit a bad act.  That doesn't actually get any of us any closer to alleviating the problem of terrorism or closer to a place where it is harder to enlist terrorists in "the cause".

    Its like saying that because some radical groups in the 60's and 70's decided to blow up building in protest to the Vietnam War, the Vietnam War wasn't a problem that we should have addressed.  It doesn't work that way - or at least it shouldn't work that way.

    Parent

    we have (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:12:44 PM EST
    a note.
    a long damn note.

    Parent
    And a long damn note that said exactly why he (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Angel on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:14:18 PM EST
    was angry and why he was doing it.  And also his house on fire a few miles away...   Duh.  Terrorism?  Good grief.  

    Parent
    you seem to be saying (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:21:48 PM EST
    this was NOT terrorism.  I dont get that.  do you think what McVeigh did was terrorism?  
    I would assume so.  why is this different?


    Parent
    I think this was a lone nutcase. Is it terrorism (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Angel on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:47:30 PM EST
    every time someone does somethig that involves harm to the government or a government agency?  If that's the case then every time someone commits a crime in a post office it's terrorism.  Is it terrorism if someone shoots a bunch of people in a public university?  I just don't like the idea of calling every evil act "terrorism," regardless of the definition.  The word has become too common and overused.

    Parent
    how about we limit it (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:49:19 PM EST
    to people flying planes into government buildings on purpose for political purposes?

    hmmm?

    and dont tell me to chill.


    Parent

    I'd love to know more about the tax protest (none / 0) (#103)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:18:02 PM EST
    group that he refers to in his "manifesto" -- the one that led him down a garden path and got him in so much trouble with the IRS in the 80s.

    I don't know that you can say this was apolitical. There's a lot of fringe political activity, such as various tax protest groups, religious extremists, etc. in this country. They are born in and feed on ignorance, prejudice, paranoia, etc. And sometimes they are mostly cons that provide a good living for a couple of people. But still, they are political and their adherents aren't "lone" nutcases.

    Parent

    I knew quite a few software engineers (none / 0) (#132)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    that were involved in such groups around the same time. One guy went to prison for tax evasion for a couple of years.

    An engineer + the tax code = trouble

    Parent

    I think that it was an act of desperation (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:32:43 PM EST
    carried out by a guy who was at the end of his rope - and in this economic environment - I think that it is a sure bet that we will see more unstable people losing it.  Terrorism, OTOH, by definition is an organized effort by a group of people who usually use people like this guy to commit their acts of terror if there is suicide involved - and if there isn't - like McVeigh, they do the deed and make sure they survive so they can carry on and make more terror.

    Parent
    Everything is not terrorism... (none / 0) (#46)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    ...you're over-reacting. Chill.

    Parent
    Yes, assuming he wasn't so crazed (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:21:50 PM EST
    that he didn't understand what he was doing. Based on what we know, there's no reason to have any more sympathy for him than Mohamed Atta

    Parent
    No sympathy for either (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:33:18 PM EST
    but no compassion, either.

    Parent
    I hate spell checkers (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:34:50 PM EST
    but no comparison, either.

    And I dislike my point and click ability.

    Parent

    We do... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:26:49 PM EST
    thats why I said it appears to be the case...I just don't like the government saying "terrorism" without a full proper investigation...the next time they say it in a rush it might not be the case.

    I see no reason to rush to judgement officially, thats what TL commenters like you and me are for:) For all we know he fell asleep at the controls.

    Parent

    I was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:10:00 PM EST
    that if the guy had been named "Yusuf" instead of "Joseph," whether or not he posted an anti-government screed on the Web, they'd be calling it "terrorism."  If not the White House, then certainly Limbaugh and his rabid followers would.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    White people can't be terrorists. Unless they're foreigners. But even then, there are probably degrees of terror -- depending on which part of the world they're from. Could an Aussie be a terrorist? Or just a disturbed individual?

    Parent
    Precisely... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:28:22 PM EST
    and thats why its wrong to yell terrorism before a full proper investigation...whether crazy brown dude or crazy white dude.

    The goal is to be better than Rush and Bush right?

    Parent

    THERES (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:29:46 PM EST
    A NOTE!

    Parent
    Lot's of people leave notes and (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    are extremely destructive when they commit suicide.  That does not by definition make them terrorists.

    The most basic definition of terrorism is that it is carried out randomly and intermittently so as to terrorize a population.  This guy is GONE.  No more from him.  The population will not worry that he is going to do this again because he is dead.

    Eric Rudolph in the time while he was at large - one worried when and if he might strike again.  That's a terrorist.

    Parent

    Are you exploiting this for political (none / 0) (#42)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:40:12 PM EST
    advantage yourself - just a bit - something like 'this guy is a teabagger and a terrorist, ergo teabaggers are now a terrorist group'.

    Is it his extreme disdain for the IRS that leads you to classify him as a teabagger? Does the note/letter contain other sentiments that don't coincide with the political stance of the teabagger movement?  

    Parent

    The note expresses the kind of frustration, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:01:28 PM EST
    despair and anger the Tea Bag leaders are exploiting. His note is quite specific in its complaint that government does not represent him.

    I think you have to make a distinction between the relatively large number of frustrated Americans who "sympathize" with and may even have actually joined the Tea Bag movement -- who share one thing consistently in common, a conviction that they are no longer represented by their government -- and the many others (Palin, Beck, Limbaugh) who are busily exploiting or trying to figure out how to in the future exploit (Steele, Republican office holders) that frustration. It's the second group that is really dangerous and has, I think, the potential to lead the movement pretty close to fascism.

    Before the election in 1994, there was so much anger among the populace, men especially, that it seemed like I couldn't talk to a customer, ride the bus downtown, buy gas, etc., without having to bear some angry rant from a guy going on and on about term limits. I finally found away to cut off the conversation and tone down the anger -- I'd say, "Forget about term limits, we just need a law that says no congressman can make more than 3 or 4 times the per capita income in his district." It would stop their rant cold every time. And then they would laugh.

    The simple fact is people, Left, Right or Independent, don't feel their representatives represent them anymore. And, they're right.

    Parent

    see (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:06:36 PM EST
    comment #85

    Parent
    Tea Bag leaders (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:23:43 PM EST
    Sounds interesting... Do they have a contest, or what?

    Parent
    You don't believe there are people (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:05:08 PM EST
    exploiting the frustration and anger of some people for their own gain? And others who are anxious to do so?

    Beck? Palin? What have these "leaders" done for these people other than make money off of them?

    You think the Republicans who are courting them have anything different to offer them than the stuff they've been peddling for the last 40 years? No.

    The Tea Party movement's anger and ideological incoherence makes it ripe for exploitation. It is too incoherent to provide a blueprint for something new and better, but it can provide the emotion and the numbers to push those on the Far Right in the Republican party to even more eRight Wing extremes (which is why, although I do not think the Tea Partiers are fascist, I fear the movement's potential to encourage fascism).

    I don't see any sign that anyone in the Republican Party thinks they need to become more moderate. Do you? The Tea Party can only empower those who think the Party has to go much, much farther to the Right.


    Parent

    something like? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:48:02 PM EST
    I never said any of that.  nice try.


    Parent
    That's why I put it in (none / 0) (#115)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:25:09 PM EST
    'scare quotes' CH, which is meant to denote my paraphrasing of what I saw as the possible subtext of your comments.

    Parent
    oh (none / 0) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:30:41 PM EST
    well good.  then you were wrong.


    Parent
    IRS that's found in the wake of crashing a plane into an IRS building is pretty damning, I mean what other explanation do you have?

    Parent
    People across the whole political spectrum (none / 0) (#203)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 07:01:27 PM EST
    have antipathy toward the IRS, and that doesn't make them teabaggers. Crashing a plane into a government building while detesting the IRS also doesn't make a guy a teabagger.

    Furthermore, Stack's suicide note/letter expresses some key anti-corporate sentiments, and opinions about the bail-outs and the corruption of health care, that are commonly voiced by ordinary people across the political spectrum:

    Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it's time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours?

    Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country's leaders don't see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political "representatives" (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the "terrible health care problem". It's clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don't get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.



    Parent
    precisely (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:14:09 PM EST
    or if the target had been CPAC

    Parent
    Actually given their intial reaction (none / 0) (#93)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:07:13 PM EST
    to the Hassan shooting I don't think the White House wants to jump the gun (forgive me its the only phrase i can think of that fits) on domestic incidents.

    Parent
    That's most likely true about the White House, (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    but if Joseph Stack had been Yusuf Abdullah or some such, I'm betting that more than one of the Republicans would have been calling this guy a "terrorist," regardless of what his note indicated.

    Parent
    I hope you are (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    right

    Parent
    I totally agree with you. This happened earlier (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Angel on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:10:58 PM EST
    this morning and they knew almost immediately who the pilot was and why he did it, and also that he had also set his own house on fire before he got into the plane and crashed into the building.  Terrorism?  That word should never have been mentioned.  This was a case of a home-grown nut who had a beef with the IRS.  

    Parent
    Hello (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:48:51 PM EST
    This is American terrorism committed by American terrorists on American soil.

    Parent
    oh you (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    you are just jumping to conclusions based on written evidence.

    Parent
    He lost his mind (none / 0) (#73)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    (You're being facetious, yes?)

    Parent
    This country is at WAR with TERRORISM (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:22:57 PM EST
    I'm just guessing, but perhaps the WH has a definition of terrorism that wasn't met today. If they actually called this act terrorism, wouldn't they have to deploy the military to Austin, TX to flush out the enemy?

    It's pretty obvious from this thread that there are almost as many variations to what constitutes terrorism as there are commenters.

    Most likely the FBI will be doing a thorough investigation to see if this man belonged to an organized group that may share his beliefs and be preparing to do the same thing.  
     

    Parent

    Shh, mustn't antagonize the people (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:08:43 PM EST
    who will never vote for you!

    Parent
    It was a desperate act by a single individual (none / 0) (#43)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    Hey, Capt Howdy, calm down.

    Parent
    the right is wasting (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    no time in getting out in front of this:
    Rush:

    "My guess is that no matter who it turns out to be, this'll be blamed on a Tea Party activist and we'll be lectured by collectivist thinking members of the MSM on the perils involved with forcefully opposing Obama policies ."

    and you should check out this jewel at the American Spectator:

    Austin Plane Crash: Is It Obama's Fault?

    make sure you check out the comments.


    hurry they are scrubbing (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    the first and best comment is no longer there.

    it was this:


    are you f**king retarded?


    Parent
    Yeah, there are some good ones (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:16:47 PM EST
    I am starting to understand the appeal of going to the rightie blogs.

    Parent
    PC Cop Palin... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:13:39 PM EST
    musta got to that one.  That lady is everywhere:)

    Parent
    That was my first trip to the Spectator (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:13:30 PM EST
    ever. I've never seen such tortured logic, not to mention prose, in my life.  Amazing anyone actually takes that nonsense seriously, but I know they do.

    Parent
    That means then (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by prittfumes on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:35:21 PM EST
    that you never watch Olbermann or Maddow. Oh I forgot, they are INTELLIGENT. Right?

    Parent
    I don't watch them either (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:42:06 PM EST
    thugh I used to listen to Maddow on the radio. I have never heard her say anything as nonsensical as this:

    The very same IRS that, using Obama-think, is itself the Guantanamo-style symbol of bad things in store for the American taxpayer at a time when everyone is saying taxes will have to be raised.



    Parent
    Your quote proves my point. (none / 0) (#164)
    by prittfumes on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:25:29 PM EST
    Gibberish is gibberish. And hogwash is hogwash. Neither one is transformed into logical truth because of its source.

    Parent
    I wonder what exactly is your point (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:27:49 PM EST
    are you defending the American Spectator?


    Parent
    When in doubt, jump to a conclusion. (none / 0) (#176)
    by prittfumes on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:52:13 PM EST
    My "point" is that there is bull-spit on all sides. If, indeed, you think I am "defending" something, how about common sense and fairness?

    Parent
    and yet (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:03:52 PM EST
    you were bashing Maddow.  who happens to have been  dishing out the most fairness and common sense you are going to find on the airwaves lately.


    Parent
    whos name (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:07:58 PM EST
    doesnt deserve to be used in the same sentence as Olberman.


    Parent
    and btw (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:31:38 PM EST
    if you are comparing the American Spectator to Maddow you are very misguided.

    that is as kindly as I can put it.


    Parent

    Thank you for your kindness. (none / 0) (#183)
    by prittfumes on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    Far too little of it these days. I don't recall mentioning "AS" -- not a single time.

    If you think I am comparing Maddow to AS, you have completely misunderstood what I wrote (imho). And that's as "kindly" as I can put it.

    Parent

    not to belabor the point (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:18:20 PM EST
    but ruffian said this:

    That was my first trip to the Spectator

    ever. I've never seen such tortured logic, not to mention prose, in my life.  Amazing anyone actually takes that nonsense seriously, but I know they do.

    to which you replied this:


    That means then

    that you never watch Olbermann or Maddow. Oh I forgot, they are INTELLIGENT. Right?

    I think "misunderstanding" that is understandable.

    Parent

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#189)
    by prittfumes on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:52:28 PM EST
    Happy sailin', Cap'n.

    Parent
    just goes to prove (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    accounting is a full-contact sport!

    fortunately, it doesn't appear that anyone, other than the pilot, has died. it's too bad this guy felt driven to that extreme.

    Since he wasn't associated with a (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    group with any political aims I find it hard to say it is terrorism, or that the guy was a "terrorist."

    Of course if anyone wants to put him into the "mention Austin every time someone mentions a radical Muslim has blown himself and/or others up file" then please be my guest.

    And if I overstate anyone's position, I apologize in advance.

    To me he was just a nut case, no more, no less.

    would you call (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:31:44 PM EST
    what Tim McVeigh did terrorism?


    Parent
    Of course. There was... (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:37:01 PM EST
    a group involved, political agenda, attack on government building, not a group, attackers tried to escape to (undoubtedly) attack again.

    Parent
    ah (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    so "terrorism" has to be more than one person.
    that excludes a lot of recent terrorists I am afraid.


    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#116)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:25:39 PM EST
    Eric Rudolph is a terrorist, and he acted alone.

    Parent
    Another loner... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:40:11 PM EST
    Terrorist, terrorism.... what purpose does it serve to classify using that term?

    "Terrorism is on the rise...."

    "Terrorists today killed five people in ...."

    "A terrorist plot to wipe out Indianapolis was thwarted minutes before the ...."

    It's a propaganda term, useless beyond that purpose.

    Parent

    Well lets see (none / 0) (#144)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:44:40 PM EST
    violence commited against non-military targets in order to achieve a political end- that would pretty much be the accepted definition of terrorism both state and non-state.

    Parent
    Whatever the accepted definition... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:08:08 PM EST
    The term isn't useful.

    Parent
    except when (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:10:55 PM EST
    applied to brown people?


    Parent
    Never. (none / 0) (#199)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:34:27 PM EST
    We don't call people joyists if they incite high levels of happiness in others. We call them musicians, or snow boarders, or whatever it is they actually do; not the emotional response they sometimes evoke in some people.

    No one would have been surprised to hear Henny Penny running around, willy nilly, calling people terrorists. We're not chickens.

    Parent

    Rudolph met with Army of God (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:41:34 PM EST
    group, connected with white supremacists, etc.

    Acting alone is not the test.  He was motivated by a shared worldview.

    Parent

    There are lone wolf terrorists Jim... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    a terrorist to me is someone who commits a violent for political reasons.

    At this point, he might be, he might not.  And we might never know.  The screed sounds like that of a suicide-bomber looking to take a few out with him...but an internet screed is far from definitive proof.

    Parent

    Nut case yes. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:38:38 PM EST
    Terrorist, no.

    Do you call serial killers terrorists?

    Parent

    If they are serially killing (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:49:04 PM EST
    people in government offices for stated reasons having to do with being against the government, I might.


    Parent
    No... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    but they don't kill for political reasons.

    This guy might have attempted to.  Or he might have just wanted to kill himself in a spectacular way.  Or he planned to take out some IRS agents and passed out drunk at the controls of the plane...we don't know yet.

    Parent

    Question (none / 0) (#148)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    was the Hasan shooting an act of terror or just a nutcase?

    Parent
    I have never heard of a requirement (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:39:18 PM EST
    that terrorists be associated with a group.

    Parent
    What's the point... (none / 0) (#98)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:10:24 PM EST
    ...of categorizing ONE GUY, acting alone, out of desperation? What purpose does that serve?

    Parent
    The Unabomber (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:20:15 PM EST
    was one guy, the OKC bombing was 2 guys, Eric Rudolph was one guy- seriously, this "one guy" thing is odd.

    Parent
    Because you were really terrorized... (none / 0) (#157)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:13:04 PM EST
    ...by any of them? They're people. Suicides. Murderers. Killers. They're not the idea of something that causes an emotional response; they're people that have resorted to violence. Their acts don't represent anything; they are what they are. Calling them terrorists just doesn't add anything useful in describing them.

    Parent
    but you call the (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:15:57 PM EST
    9/11 muslims terrorists, right?


    Parent
    the same thing (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:12:22 PM EST
    it served with the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber etc etc.

    Parent
    Terrorists are motivated by ideology (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:22:46 PM EST
    and an ideology is a shared worldview.

    Parent
    We could go around and around on this (none / 0) (#122)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:30:42 PM EST
    but I find your definition circular and reaching.

    For my purposes, anyone who kills or attempts to kill people to draw attention to his or her grievances with a government qualifies prima facie as a terrorist.

    Parent

    Disagree. Sometimes it's just murder (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    by a lone killer, not based on a shared ideology.  In this case, apparently based on an individual's awful experience with a branch of the government.  Sometimes that is owing to one stupid IRS agent.

    If he had crashed the plane into agent's house, or jumped the agent with a knife, is that terrorism?  

    (No.)

    Parent

    no (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    it isnt.  but he didnt do that.  he crashed a plane into a government building.


    Parent
    For me it's the political component (none / 0) (#134)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:39:07 PM EST
    that makes this clearly terrorism. If he were just pissed at the size of his tax bill, I would probably have a different opinion.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    if he's angry about his bill and shoots an IRS agent- I think lone nut, its the crashing a plane into a building as a generalized attack that makes it terror.

    Parent
    Suicide guy was anti-IRSness.... (none / 0) (#163)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:22:28 PM EST
    ...and it's generally accepted that anti-IRSness = terrorism. So, this guy is a terrorist. Um, no.

    And even if there were any logic to it, what good does it go?

    Parent

    when you crash a plane (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:25:37 PM EST
    into a building with the intent of killing an untold number of people its terrorism.
    when it is a government office that is the target of the act likewise, terrorism.

    hope this helps.

    and I still wonder if you would call it terrorism if he was brown and from another country.


    Parent

    clearly terrorism..... (none / 0) (#141)
    by vicndabx on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:43:03 PM EST
    apparently not, based on the comments

    Parent
    That would include every... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:09:33 PM EST
    American Revolutionary War veteran, wouldn't it AG?

    I'm with Neal...its becoming a over-used meaningless freakin' scare-term.  It's the new "criminal"

    Parent

    He chose a government building. (none / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:39:47 PM EST
    It's spelled T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-M...

    Parent
    So if it had been (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:48:21 PM EST
    a hotel....

    Come one folks, it was a nutcase trying to get revenge from some supposed wrong. There's no group, no agenda..

    By calling him a terrorist you start to provide equivalence to real terrorists.

    Parent

    He quoted a whole section of tax code he had (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:51:21 PM EST
    been working for years to get changed. That puts it over the line from revenge into pushing an agenda to me.

    Parent
    If it had been a hotel (none / 0) (#70)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:54:41 PM EST
    filled with IRS folks, yes, terrorism.

    "Violence is the only answer?"

    "I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt"?

    I don't believe terrorists are necessarily foreign.

    Parent

    There should be a "revolt...." (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:26:58 PM EST
    I don't see where he specified that he was endorsing, or hoping for, a larger, violent uprising as a result of his suicide.

    Parent
    Now it sounds like... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:18:24 PM EST
    you're placing a higher value on government employee life lilburro.  Forgive me if I'm wrong.

    I always thought it was pretty f*cked up for cop-killers to be punished more than bodega owner-killers...as if one life is more valuable than another.  The occupation of the victim is irrelevant to me...the litmus test for terrorist killing vs. regular killing is whether the motive is political....not who the victims are.

    Parent

    um (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    no.

    I am trying to explain why this qualifies as TERRORISM.  The targeting of government officials and/or government institutions/landmarks.  Why his suicide is different from other suicides in that it sends a POLITICAL MESSAGE.

    No one's life is more valuable than any other (generally speaking) but there's a reason why killing political figures is called an ASSASSINATION and not simply homicide.

    And I have no idea why you are projecting yourself on this guy so deeply, considering you are NOT flying a plane into a government building with an intent to send a message.

    I think people are just refusing to use the "t" word because of the body count (which to my knowledge is only him and will, pray, stay that way).  The message is nonetheless out there, and if you don't think this will affect the political climate I think you must be kidding.

    Parent

    Thanks for clarifying... (none / 0) (#188)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:46:37 PM EST
    I don't mean to project, I was just struck by the fact I was in general agreement about the state of the union with a guy who flew a plane into a bulding...thats a kinda weird feeling.

    I'm not refusing to call it terrorism, right now it looks like it...but we're not to the bottom of it, and we might never get to the bottom of it.

    I think terrorism is more about motive than target...I mean terrorists set off bombs in markets and shopping malls, doesn't make it any less terrorism than a government building.  In fact, government installatons are often considered legitimate targets in war...shopping malls aren't.  The more I think about it, a government target is probably less likely to be a true terrorist act than a civilian one.  

    In the rare cases when war or revolt are unavoidable and justified, the only legit targets would be of the government you're fighting against...no?  

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#194)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:05:43 PM EST
    I don't think there's any one way of being a terrorist.  You can be organized or not.  For me the question is, are you trying to send a message by killing a certain group of people you have absolutely no personal connection to?  And intent to me doesn't necessarily have to be conscious.  This guy, in committing suicide, chose to do so through extremely recognizable symbols (crashing a plane into a building; that plane being tied to the government).  I think maybe Capt. Howdy made the same point about the plane above.

    And your last question seems to me completely hypothetical, unless "rare" cases means "subject to an individual's relativistic worldview" and we are all obligated to instead of organizing for change, fly an airplane into whatever government agency makes us miserable that day.

    Parent

    I'm digging that definition... (none / 0) (#202)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:40:31 PM EST
    trying to send a message by killing a certain group of people you have absolutely no personal connection to

    What I meant by rare is when your life or liberty and in grave direct threat....which I guess is also open to interpretation.

    Parent

    The note (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:43:31 PM EST
    "If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, "Why did this have to happen?'" the note read. "The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time."

    "Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer."

    "I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well," the note, dated Thursday, reads.

    Warning FNC link.

    ;-)


    Jim, until I clicked (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:13:30 PM EST
    I thought your FNC alert stood for 'effing nut case'  ;-)

    I think we should use that acronym too.

    Parent

    I see that my sarcasm (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:27:09 PM EST
    slipped by... or did it?

    Parent
    Since I'm not sure (none / 0) (#145)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:44:46 PM EST
    I guess it must have.

    Parent
    For all: (none / 0) (#75)
    by vicndabx on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    ter·ror·ism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

    Except when used against tyrants (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:03:12 PM EST
    Then it is revolution and freedom, watering that tree of liberty.

    Parent
    You said it... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:04:33 PM EST
    the old one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

    Parent
    Amen, can you say "Contras"? (none / 0) (#120)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:28:47 PM EST
    I could be wrong (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:32:09 PM EST
    but I think she was being ironic.


    Parent
    Possibly... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:43:33 PM EST
    but I'm serious.  I'm non-violent by nature, but no pacifist.

    Parent
    YOu ahve proof (none / 0) (#114)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    correct?

    Was his purpose to terrorize? (none / 0) (#143)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:44:32 PM EST
    Yes.

    He didn't fly his plane into the IRS building because he had lost touch with reality and didn't know what he was doing. He wasn't insane, in the legal sense at least. No more so than Tim McVey or the 9/11 Terrorists.

    He had a grievance and he wanted to bring attention to that grievance and to harm and terrorize the people he held responsible.

    As for the debate about whether or not he was a Tea Bagger, a Progressive, a Conservative, whatever -- Left and Right aren't the only points on the political spectrum.

    Obviously a Catholic bigot with some history with an organized tax protest group and a belief that our government represents large wealthy interest over the interests of the little guy doesn't fall cleanly into any traditional notions of conservative or progressive. His last quotes indicate he hates both government and capitalism.

    At best, if you need to give it a label, you can label it Naive American Populism, 2010 version.

    But, just because his politics may seen incoherent doesn't mean his act wasn't political.

    If ideological coherence was a requirement for political activity, no one would be covering or courting the Tea Partiers.

    Read his letter... (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:28:01 PM EST
    ...his purpose was not to terrorize. It was revenge, mostly, I think. Personal revenge.

    Parent
    I read his letter (none / 0) (#177)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:54:18 PM EST
    His purpose was most certainly to terrorize. Others have quoted the relevant parts. He wanted to harm, terrorize and encourage others to do the same.

    Parent
    My young cat (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:57:01 PM EST
    terrorizes my old cat.

    Parent
    off-topic n/t (none / 0) (#185)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:20:21 PM EST
    Nope. The verb you use (none / 0) (#191)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:56:27 PM EST
    does not justify the noun you use, per the example I cite.  See definition of to terrorize, which encompasses actions by far more than terrorists.

    Parent
    if you look (none / 0) (#196)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:18:33 PM EST
    at esmense's comments as a whole, you would see the justification for the use of the noun terrorist.    

    I see your point, but who is really arguing that "terrorizing" makes you a terrorist?

    Parent

    Yup, and (none / 0) (#146)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:44:49 PM EST
    I read it and found myself agreeing with much of what he said, and finding that it corresponded with what many liberal (and libertarian) writers that I admire profess. I didn't see anything remotely like the unhinged rantings of the teabaggers here--except hatred of the IRS, which, as many here have noted, is a hatred most Americans of all political persuasions have.

    I mean, check this out:

    Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it's time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours?  Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies
    , are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country's leaders don't see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies.  Yet, the political "representatives" (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the "terrible health care problem".  It's clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don't get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

    That could be me (except I didn't object to the GM bailouts)!

    Much of it is just pure rage and despair. It also sounds like he got involved in one of those "taxes are illegal, the Constitution says so" groups that hang around the fringes of the militia movement. That coupled with his personal problems seems to have pushed him well over the edge.

    tax policy blog (none / 0) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:45:28 PM EST
    I read Stack's note.... (none / 0) (#151)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:03:48 PM EST
    I don't know, maybe it was the cat food.

    Tragic.

    I hope you were (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:18:41 PM EST
    talking about the act.  because the guys life was not all that "tragic".
    he spent his life trying to cheat the IRS and got caught.  boo hoo.

    I just saw this on CNN:

    "The work of a self-employed software consultant is a very hard life."

    yeah, compared to what exactly?


    Parent

    You don't know anything about this guy (none / 0) (#171)
    by NealB on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:36:35 PM EST
    .

    Parent
    actually (none / 0) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:42:11 PM EST
    I know quite a bit.  you could too if you read a little more and commented a little less.

    one thing is for sure I know this statement:

    "The work of a self-employed software consultant is a very hard life."

    is idiotic.

    Parent

    The Unabombers (none / 0) (#187)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:43:11 PM EST
    life sucked too that doesn't make him any less of a terrorist. I mean most suicide bombers come from the bottom rungs of society- they're still terrorists.

    Parent
    Walks like a duck, (none / 0) (#173)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:40:34 PM EST
    talks like a duck...

    photo of the crash

    Surely not an attack on a government institution though, oh no...

    oh no (none / 0) (#181)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    The rant reflects many of the same populist, anti-government, anti-tax, and anti-corporate themes that have surfaced around the country over the last year. It is entitled, and concludes: "Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well."


    Parent
    What does that prove though... (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    besides that he wanted to kill himself and blamed the IRS for his suicidal woes?

    Every terrorist is a nutjob, not every nutjob is a terrorist.  Again he may well be, but whats the rush?  Is it because he's a white dude and we'd rush to call him a terrorist if he was a brown dude?  We shouldn't do it to anybody.

    Parent

    Like so many people who get in trouble (none / 0) (#190)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    with the IRS and end up angry at the government, it seems like this guy's real problem is that he wasn't very good at managing his business.

    That helped make him easy prey for some tax protest scam.

    Bad business decisions, like hiring more people than your market justifies and ending up with payroll taxes you can't cover, and bad practices, like poor record keeping and a failure to file,etc., are usually the cause of tax problems for small business.

    Because the reality is, our tax system does everything it can to give business a break -- and if you don't earn the income, you don't owe the income tax. Payroll taxes are another matter -- because there you are messing around with what you owe to your employees, not Uncle Sam.

    Like our... (none / 0) (#193)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:02:00 PM EST
    complex tax code has nothing to do with people having IRS problems.  Even Geithner couldn't figure it out...he's top government businessman.

    Parent
    That wasn't about small business taxes (none / 0) (#197)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:23:39 PM EST
    it was about a failure to report investment earnings. The reason that part of the tax code is so complicated is because so many investment instruments are so complicated -- and designed to actually get around paying any taxes at all.

    I didn't see anyone putting the man on the rack for failing to comply. Did you? I don't have a lot of sympathy for wealthy people who slip up, intentionally or not, and are slightly embarassed. And I have no sympathy for wealthy people who fail to pay payroll taxes for their household employees. And I certainly don't think their tax problems mean that the government is being mean to small business.

    Over the years a free-lancer responsible for my own taxes and for the last 16 years a business owner. I haven't found the Federal tax code to be that difficult and I certainly have never considered it unfair to me. I do have a gripe with the heavy payroll tax burden my young employees have to bear.

    State taxes can be something else altogether. But what we're discussing here is the IRS.

    Businesses are provided LOTS of legitimate deductions that are in no way difficult to understand. Having to personally write the check, rather than having it taken out of your check, is hard. It really makes you aware of what you are contributing to a government that doesn't support policies you would like it to support, or that supports policies you object to. And it is more than irritating to know that the top 400 earners in the country are paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than you are. But that doesn't mean you are paying an undue burden. It means that they aren't paying their fair share.

    Parent

    For a small business income taxes are like old age (none / 0) (#198)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:29:51 PM EST
    preferable to the alternative. (Which in the case of old age would be death, in the case of income taxes, no income.)

    Parent
    But you're a smart cat esmense... (none / 0) (#201)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:36:28 PM EST
    And I must say the 1040EZ is, in fact, easy.  My short state form is half greek, but thats more having no interest in understanding financial mumbo-jumbo than anything else:) And I like to think I'm not the dullest knife in the drawer.  But for some people it's complicated.

    I've long believed it's complicated on purpose, just so the top 400 earners you speak of can con it all the better.  And the small entrepeneurs and the wage earners and the freelancers are left holding the bag, and god forbid ya f*ck up.

    Parent

    new thread on austin plane attack (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 07:10:35 PM EST
    here. Comments reached 200 here, the max we allow. This thread is closed.

    He doesn't sound all that (none / 0) (#207)
    by TomStewart on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 11:07:00 PM EST
    teabagerish to me, sounded more Freemanish to me. I read a lot of that stuff when my dad went paranoid and sent me reams of it.