IRS Attack in Austin: Was it Terrorism

[Isles of Nixon]

OK folks, I've spoken to about a dozen people on this matter thus far, and they span from Republicans to Democrats, conservatives and liberals, Texans and non-Texans alike and with the exception of two people, the answer is resoundingly clear: the attack on the IRS building was an attack by a homegrown domestic terrorist. But because the two who claimed it was not a terrorist act were so vehemently against the use for such a word to describe this cowardly and vicious attack, I thought I should open it up here because we represent our own little world - with Americans, non-Americans, people all across the political spectrum and I'd like you to weigh in on it.

To me, the answer is blatantly clear - this was a terrorist act. My definition of terrorism is whenever something is methodically planned out and targets noncombatants, especially those who work for the government in a noncombatant role, in such a way as to instill fear. There can be no doubt that Joseph Stack targeted not a military installation or any law enforcement agency (although the FBI building in Austin is in close proximity to the IRS building), but rather a building that housed solely innocent civilians doing their jobs.

Now many people have many definitions for terrorism, and to date there is no solely accepted definition of it. Some believe it is to instill fear in people to push through an ideological agenda, and others believe that there are no such things as lone terrorist acts, that it is terrorism if there aren't simultaneous attacks against multiple targets.

To me, there is no difference between the IRS in Austin and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Both house noncombatant civilian departments of the federal government. Both perpetrators of these heinous acts were angry at the government and intended to use violence to get their message across. One used a plane, the other a truck bomb. One was more methodical than the other, but that does not mean that one was a case of a person snapping and the other not, far from it in fact. Both men had a long resentment toward the government and both believed that violence was the only answer.

Members of the government too have chimed in:

"Like the larger-scale tragedy in Oklahoma City, this was a cowardly act of domestic terrorism. Stack’s apparent website message reflects the steadily increasing flow of ‘the government is out to get me’ paranoia. That so many have already contributed to a Facebook page as ‘fans’ of this terrorist attack on public servants is a truly appalling expression of extremism, which Americans will overwhelmingly reject. " - Rep. Lloyd Dogget (D)

"When you fly an airplane into a federal building (to kill federal employees), it sounds like (terrorism) to me." - Rep. Michael McCaul (R)

It would be a stretch to say that Oklahoma City was a terrorist act and not the IRS, but I'd like to hear what you all think on the subject.

[Mutanatia]

You know, Nixon, this is the first time I'd have to agree with you. The only difference between this attack and the attack on 9/11 (in essence) is the fact that hardly anyone got killed (I think, correct me if I'm wrong here...last I heard, only one person was missing)--and the fact that (obviously) the attacker was a U.S. Citizen. I would call this homegrown terrorism. However, it is necessary to mention that this was not a radically-inspired attack (as far as I know)...just some disgruntled citizen fed up with government. THat being said, I still agree that this was terrorism.

[Enigmatic]

I'm curious about what the two said exactly

[Bad Infinitum]

Terrorists blow themselves up in marketplaces, government buildings, and parks with the intention of instilling the fear of such places into the hearts of the local populace. They hijack and shoot down airplanes with the intention of instilling a fear of flight in their target population. Terrorism isn't about technicalities, it is about intent.

Just because someone intentionally flew an airplane into a building doesn't make it an act of terrorism. It's like how a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't always a square.

Joe Stack had scruples with the government, and he decided to take brash action to make those scruples known. He may have gone too far, but in his mind, I'm sure he hadn't gone far enough. His intent was to disrupt the day-to-day of the singular institution that he hated most, the IRS. He had no desire to scare office workers across the country from going to work, just in case an airplane happened to crash into the building that day. That is the difference between true terrorism and acts that the media likes to declare as terrorism.

His actions are still inexcusable, and he was still certainly a troubled individual, but what he did was not terrorism. The media has started to make people believe that any attack against unarmed civilians is an act of terrorism, where in fact, the term "terrorism" is a very specific tactic used by a very tiny faction of Mujahideen. True, terrorists attack civilians. However, they attack with intent to coerce and instill fear in the peers of their victims, whereas Joe Stack attacked with the intent to punish those that troubled him directly.

[Neo Runa]

The definition of terrorism is very broad, pretty much everything that incites fear in general population can be considered terrorism, whenever carried out by private persons, groups and governments.

The term Terrorism implies an organized strategy aimed at sapping the morale of the people. Whenever a single attack carried out by a single person is a part of that... well, it depends on who's in charge.

That aside, as well as whenever he was right or wrong, I'm more concerned about U.S government's dismissive attitude towards progressively radical solutions people take. Or maybe I just don't have access to "proper" information sources, seeing as I'm not American.

However, if a guy suddenly gets so fed up that he rams a plane into governmental building, I'd be pretty concerned, since seeing announcement in which somebody will self-righteously claim that general population will reject such actions doesn't make me feel safer.

Although, If politicians weren't such a##^&*!^ there wouldn't be many extremists in first place.

[Estayland]

I think the word "terrorism" paints too broad of a brush. It's a word used to incite emotion and will soon have no meaning to it because it's thrown around too much.

I agree with PAI. It's a despicable act for sure, but probably not terrorism.

[Bad Infinitum]

Feb 21, 2010 15:53:14 GMT -5 Estayland said:

I think the word "terrorism" paints too broad of a brush. It's a word used to incite emotion and will soon have no meaning to it because it's thrown around too much.

I was just saying exactly the same thing to a friend of mine. If this is considered terrorism, what's next? Liquor store robberies? Vehicular manslaughter? Scary? Yes. Terrorism... not so much.

[Isles of Nixon]

Yes terrorism technically gets painted with a broad brush. But the whole intent, that terrorism is to instill fear in people from going about their daily lives, then means that Oklahoma City should not be considered terrorism. But, since it is, this latest incident can be no different.

I think Mutantia is right...a lot depends, unfortunately, on the body count. If less than ten people are killed, it's typically not called terrorism. And that's because the body count continually seems to go up with these incidents - 9/11, Pan Am 103, Oklahoma City and yet one could say that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center too would not be considered terrorism then. But the fact that innocent noncombatants were targeted, it is, in my belief, terrorism regardless whether casualties are one or one thousand.

His intent was to further a political point, that the government was out to get him - that too would fall under the umbrella of terrorism. Just googling "Austin" and "terrorism" brings up a slew of newspaper articles about the subject, so it's certainly getting a lot of folks into the debate. Glad to see some of that here.

[Klington]

At first, I wanted to open up this debate with great reasons as to why this is not terrorism. Then I realized that I really couldn't do that.

So, now, I just want to add my own dimension to this thread.

I've come to the conclusion that either nothing or everything is terrorism.

To conclude, I would just like to add this admonishment:

Opinions are like butts, everyone has one and they all stink.

[New Dracora]

Feb 21, 2010 20:02:57 GMT -5 Klington said:

Opinions are like butts, everyone has one and they all stink.

It's because of gems like this that I am glad that you came back dude

Feb 21, 2010 19:02:55 GMT -5 Bad Infinitum said:

Feb 21, 2010 15:53:14 GMT -5 Estayland said:

I think the word "terrorism" paints too broad of a brush. It's a word used to incite emotion and will soon have no meaning to it because it's thrown around too much.

I was just saying exactly the same thing to a friend of mine. If this is considered terrorism, what's next? Liquor store robberies? Vehicular manslaughter? Scary? Yes. Terrorism... not so much.

Public protest? Opposing the government?

"Why do you hate freedom?"

[Broncrano]

it is terrorism as he used the attack to get in the spotlight to convey his message or he wanted to commit suicide and thought "hey why don't i take a few lives while i am at it".

[Anime Daisuki]

A big reason things like that happen is that laws are to lenient in the US and the people are not serious about enforcement.

Only a handful of states have the death penalty, and actually hang people within a decade of sentencing. The majority drags out the process for years on end.

In Europe, it is illegal to spread hatred of any kind including terrorism. Nazi groups denying the holocaust can be fined and jailed. In the US, under the banner of free speech people can stand on street corners calling for global jihad or the killing of groups of people. Free speech lets people spread hate all they want.

[Broncrano]

Feb 25, 2010 18:14:14 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

A big reason things like that happen is that laws are to lenient in the US and the people are not serious about enforcement.

Only a handful of states have the death penalty, and actually hang people within a decade of sentencing. The majority drags out the process for years on end.

In Europe, it is illegal to spread hatred of any kind including terrorism. Nazi groups denying the holocaust can be fined and jailed. In the US, under the banner of free speech people can stand on street corners calling for global jihad or the killing of groups of people. Free speech lets people spread hate all they want.

i agree with you as far as the sentencing goes , they need to start killing off some people in prison that deserve it.

However thats what is great about the united states is free speech ,being able to express your thought without prosecution,but i don't think we just look the other way when someone says that they are going to arsenate the president or crash a plane.

[New Dracora]

Feb 25, 2010 18:14:14 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

A big reason things like that happen is that laws are to lenient in the US and the people are not serious about enforcement.

Only a handful of states have the death penalty, and actually hang people within a decade of sentencing. The majority drags out the process for years on end.

In Europe, it is illegal to spread hatred of any kind including terrorism. Nazi groups denying the holocaust can be fined and jailed. In the US, under the banner of free speech people can stand on street corners calling for global jihad or the killing of groups of people. Free speech lets people spread hate all they want.

With all due respect dude, here down under we have no death penalty what-so-ever and we don't have people flying aircraft into tax offices (no, they prefer to use shopping trolley's with petrol bombs instead but anywho...).

I actually find it amusing that somehow, someone who is suicidal is supposed to be detered from doing a suicidal act with the threat of the death penalty: "Oh gee, I better not go kill all those people when I kill myself - the state will kill me!!!"

[Broncrano]

Feb 26, 2010 5:44:43 GMT -5 New Dracora said:

Feb 25, 2010 18:14:14 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

A big reason things like that happen is that laws are to lenient in the US and the people are not serious about enforcement.

Only a handful of states have the death penalty, and actually hang people within a decade of sentencing. The majority drags out the process for years on end.

In Europe, it is illegal to spread hatred of any kind including terrorism. Nazi groups denying the holocaust can be fined and jailed. In the US, under the banner of free speech people can stand on street corners calling for global jihad or the killing of groups of people. Free speech lets people spread hate all they want.

With all due respect dude, here down under we have no death penalty what-so-ever and we don't have people flying aircraft into tax offices (no, they prefer to use shopping trolley's with petrol bombs instead but anywho...).

I actually find it amusing that somehow, someone who is suicidal is supposed to be detered from doing a suicidal act with the threat of the death penalty: "Oh gee, I better not go kill all those people when I kill myself - the state will kill me!!!"

you make a good point, so what do you think people should do to stop it

[Enigmatic]

There are two great tenets that should be a part of every disciplinary action from childhood to adulthood. Those great tenets are pain and shame. One who breaks the rules/law should physically feel the consequences of his/her actions and should also be made to feel ashamed of his/her actions. As a child that means a spanking and a scolding. As an adult I think that should mean a public whipping. Let the criminal be ridiculed by his peers for his crime. Let the one who contemplates crime think of the pain as well as shame he/she would experience for committing a crime. There's my two cents for reducing criminal acts.

[The Candy Lane]

Mar 1, 2010 17:20:14 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

There are two great tenets that should be a part of every disciplinary action from childhood to adulthood. Those great tenets are pain and shame. One who breaks the rules/law should physically feel the consequences of his/her actions and should also be made to feel ashamed of his/her actions. As a child that means a spanking and a scolding. As an adult I think that should mean a public whipping. Let the criminal be ridiculed by his peers for his crime. Let the one who contemplates crime think of the pain as well as shame he/she would experience for committing a crime. There's my two cents for reducing criminal acts.

seconded. bring back the labor camps!
but honestly its redundant to send criminals to a place full of other criminals. kinda like washing dishes in dirty water.

[Klington]

Mar 1, 2010 17:20:14 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

There are two great tenets that should be a part of every disciplinary action from childhood to adulthood. Those great tenets are pain and shame. One who breaks the rules/law should physically feel the consequences of his/her actions and should also be made to feel ashamed of his/her actions. As a child that means a spanking and a scolding. As an adult I think that should mean a public whipping. Let the criminal be ridiculed by his peers for his crime. Let the one who contemplates crime think of the pain as well as shame he/she would experience for committing a crime. There's my two cents for reducing criminal acts.

I disagree, yet only partially. Pain and shame only go so far. It is the inculcation of values that is the foundation upon which society rests.

Pain and shame leads to avoidance strategies. For example, is committing the crime worth the punishment? A yes answer would lead to the crime being committed, or, can I avoid the being caught/punishment? A yes answer would lead to the crime being committed. However if the following thoughts arise:

I am a good person who believes in a system of morality, is this action wrong? A yes answer leads to the action not being committed.

Pain and shame are only acceptable when combined with the inculcation of the reality upon which society rests. When I punish a child for wrong doing, I make it clear to them, through repetitious explanation and clear, concise wording, why it was wrong.

Which leads me to my question aimed at you fine ladies and gentlemen, which will no doubt be flamed by my fellow conservatives , is it the system of law that has gone awry, or the system of education?

[The Candy Lane]

both. in canad both are shot. the judges are payed off, shorter sentence the longer the criminal record, rehab has worked for non-violent crimes but violent crime have steadily increased. i want to see tougher mandatory sentences so murderers spend more then 3 yrs in jail before getting parole. the judicial system is supposed to be about justice. second chances are good, but justice comes first.

[Klington]

Mar 1, 2010 19:56:25 GMT -5 The Candy Lane said:

both. in canad both are shot. the judges are payed off, shorter sentence the longer the criminal record, rehab has worked for non-violent crimes but violent crime have steadily increased. i want to see tougher mandatory sentences so murderers spend more then 3 yrs in jail before getting parole. the judicial system is supposed to be about justice. second chances are good, but justice comes first.

For sure, second chances are a no go. What I refer to is the first chance, why is the potential criminal thinking about potentially committing a crime?

[Geilinor]

"Terrorism-
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."
(Definition from Dictionary.com) So basically, terrorism is a broad term that refers to the use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce someone to do something. The attack was a terrorist attack if the intent was to intimidate or coerce the IRS or the government into doing something.