Why isn't Joe Stack being called a terrorist?

[pcosmar]

People weren't afraid to work in a federal building after McVeigh either.

That is because Mc Veigh was not a terrorist either.
He was a government employee.
Terrorism is a propaganda construct. It is a "made up" term.

Because if they label him as a "terrorist", millions of Americans that secretly sympathize with him and hate the IRS will rethink the term/label "terrorist".

The term would lose it's effect.

 

[Petar]

That is because Mc Veigh was not a terrorist either.
He was a government employee.
Terrorism is a propaganda construct. It is a "made up" term.

According to my own research, McVey was a stooge of criminal elements of the government, but also a terrorist himself.

Terrorism is simply an attack against civilians for a political purpose.

Joe Stack is very obviously a terrorist as well.

 

[ARealConservative]

No, it isn't terrorism if it doesn't have an effect on people. The guy on the plane at Christmas? It changed things for people, and may change things further on down the line even more. Terrorism.

Like it or not, terrorism is not a classification of violence like "manslaughter" versus "murder," but is instead an evaluation of the psychological impact. Did the violence towards abortion clinics make women think twice about getting an abortion? Did they make doctors feel they should get security/protection? Did some people change careers?

Do the actions of the DEA, including the raids, the unjustified overuse of violence, the undue confiscation of property, the stigma the Government makes sure follows you if they decide you are a "drug dealer"... that which is above and beyond what's written down in the laws to begin with... do those things change how people behave? Oh yes.

It's the way the violence is processed by our society, by our habits, that makes it terrorism. The ultimate goal is to make people afraid, and to use that fear to an advantage.

sorry but I don't think you have put much thought into your definition.

Do we need to ask everyone that works in an IRS building if this incident has an effect on them before declaring it terrorism?

If the intent was to cause change in people/governments, that is good enough for me to label it as terrorism.

What you are describing is just the difference between effective and ineffective terrorism.

 

[MelissaWV]

According to my own research, McVey was a stooge of criminal elements of the government, but also a terrorist himself.

Terrorism is simply an attack against civilians for a political purpose.

Joe Stack is very obviously a terrorist as well.

This is where the official definition and I disagree. I think you can very well hold a city hostage, and terrorize the hell out of it, without a specific political agenda.

 

[paulitics]

That is because Mc Veigh was not a terrorist either.
He was a government employee.
Terrorism is a propaganda construct. It is a "made up" term.

I agree with you to some extent, but there is a difference between the guy who works for the post office and goes postal, and Mcveigh (and perhaps other perpretratrors ) who blew up the building.

Perhaps we need to invent a new term, for this category, but this will probably be more of a propaganda nightmare for those who are in the liberty movement, and every day citizens. The watered down term may lump those who are disgruntled at work, and then this will just give the government an excuse to go snooping into the lives of every day Joes who are disgruntled with their work.

 

[MelissaWV]

sorry but I don't think you have put much thought into your definition.

Do we need to ask everyone that works in an IRS building if this incident has an effect on them before declaring it terrorism?

If the intent was to cause change in people/governments, that is good enough for me to label it as terrorism.

What you are describing is just the difference between effective and ineffective terrorism.

Sadly, "terrorism" really has come to mean anything disruptive with a political motive, as long as the Government wants to apply the definition. This guy isn't a terrorist to me. He killed himself, made a statement, and that's that. He wasn't really going to change anything with it. It's not about whether or not the act was concluded. The guy set his own house on fire, for pity's sake. It sounds just like a lot of other people in the news, only this guy's note included something political, so suddenly he's a terrorist to some folks. In reality he's just someone who staged an arson/suicide. I don't care who the victims were, because isn't that along the lines of "hate crime" bullcrap? The letter should be taken on its own merits, and has a variety of good points. How all of this ties together and adds up to "terrorist" to some people is beyond me.

Incidentally, the dictionary seems to agree with me:

1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

So where's the intimidation and coersion? Where's the fear and submission? In my prior examples, it was there in spades, even with the threat of terrorism, or a botched plot.

We can agree to disagree, as I disagree with the oft-used Government definition of terrorist/terrorism. I'm a little surprised they're not using it for this guy, but that probably has more to do with the body count and the fear of giving the guy martyr status among some.

 

[Petar]

This is where the official definition and I disagree. I think you can very well hold a city hostage, and terrorize the hell out of it, without a specific political agenda.

Strictly speaking, I think you are correct also.

But if ones sole purpose is just to paralyze a large group of people with fear, then perhaps that is political in itself, in some way.

In any event, the whole question makes me think of someone like Nero.

 

[pcosmar]

According to my own research, McVey was a stooge of criminal elements of the government, but also a terrorist himself.

Terrorism is simply an attack against civilians for a political purpose.

Joe Stack is very obviously a terrorist as well.

This is where your own definition fails.
He targeted a Government office and government employees. He targeted the Enemy( in his eyes)
Not "the public".
As to Mc McVeigh, there are questions as to his actual involvement. and who (in truth) pushed the button.
Even IF he did detonate the truck, he could not have set and detonated all the bombs that were placed in the building.

The analogy fails.

 

[angelatc]

Terrorism is simply an attack against civilians for a political purpose.

Joe Stack is very obviously a terrorist as well.

Absolutely. His manifesto clearly contained a call to arms.

 

[Petar]

This is where your own definition fails.
He targeted a Government office and government employees. He targeted the Enemy( in his eyes)
Not "the public".
As to Mc McVeigh, there are questions as to his actual involvement. and who (in truth) pushed the button.
Even IF he did detonate the truck, he could not have set and detonated all the bombs that were placed in the building.

The analogy fails.

Timothy McVey could have believed that he was targeting aliens from outer space for all I care, it does not change the fact that the Alfred P Murrah building was loaded with innocent civilians.

This is the realm that is commonly referred to as REALITY, you may want to familiarize yourself with it some time.

 

[jmdrake]

No, it isn't terrorism if it doesn't have an effect on people. The guy on the plane at Christmas? It changed things for people, and may change things further on down the line even more. Terrorism.

Like it or not, terrorism is not a classification of violence like "manslaughter" versus "murder," but is instead an evaluation of the psychological impact. Did the violence towards abortion clinics make women think twice about getting an abortion? Did they make doctors feel they should get security/protection? Did some people change careers?

Do the actions of the DEA, including the raids, the unjustified overuse of violence, the undue confiscation of property, the stigma the Government makes sure follows you if they decide you are a "drug dealer"... that which is above and beyond what's written down in the laws to begin with... do those things change how people behave? Oh yes.

It's the way the violence is processed by our society, by our habits, that makes it terrorism. The ultimate goal is to make people afraid, and to use that fear to an advantage.

The problem with that definition is that it leaves definition of terrorism to government and media manipulation. Also it's impossible to fully measure impact. I'm sure some doctors changed their security regime after the abortion bombings. And perhaps there will greater scrutiny of private airplanes after this attack. But that really doesn't matter. If someone is seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to change political discourse, that's terrorism. The underwear bomber shouldn't have caused the panic reaction that it did. After all, his dad told the FBI ahead of time to look out for his son. But the government hyped (elements) of the story for their own purposes. But maybe your argument is that the government and the media are the only terrorists because they are the only ones that can successfully manipulate the masses to a fear reaction from any particular event?

 

[pcosmar]

Timothy McVey could have believed that he was targeting aliens from outer space for all I care, it does not change the fact that the Alfred P Murrah building was loaded with innocent civilians.

This is the realm that is commonly referred to as REALITY, you may want to familiarize yourself with it some time.

I am acquainted with reality.
Fact is the Alfred P Murrah building was brought down by multiple bombs place inside the building prior to the truck pulling up front.
The truck bomb was the pyrotechnic show for the cameras and the public.
Tim McVeigh was the patsy. Not the terrorist.

That is beside the point.

Terrorism/Terrorist is a created term for propaganda purposes. It is used in certain situations when it suits the propagandist and the story they want to sell.

example;
An indigenous person sets an explosive device targeting foreign invaders= terrorist
Foreign military blows up women and children with a targeted atack= collateral damage, not terrorism.

It is propaganda.

Because if they label him as a "terrorist", millions of Americans that secretly sympathize with him and hate the IRS will rethink the term/label "terrorist".

The term would lose it's effect.

 

[jmdrake]

This is where your own definition fails.
He targeted a Government office and government employees. He targeted the Enemy( in his eyes)
Not "the public".
As to Mc McVeigh, there are questions as to his actual involvement. and who (in truth) pushed the button.
Even IF he did detonate the truck, he could not have set and detonated all the bombs that were placed in the building.

The analogy fails.

Ummm.....all terrorists target "the enemy" in their eyes. Are there problems in the OKC story? Most definitely. But even if it was "false flag" terrorism it was still terrorism.

 

[erowe1]

Stack and McVeigh were both terrorists as far as I'm concerned. But I can't conceive of any reason that should matter legally. There shouldn't be a special legal category of terrorism, just like there shouldn't be hate crimes laws. If you murder someone, your crime is murder regardless of your motivation. If you murder 100 people, your crime is murdering 100 people regardless of your motivation.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Stack and McVeigh were both terrorists as far as I'm concerned. But I can't conceive of any reason that should matter legally. There shouldn't be a special legal category of terrorism, just like there shouldn't be hate crimes laws. If you murder someone, your crime is murder regardless of your motivation. If you murder 100 people, your crime is murdering 100 people regardless of your motivation.

Yeah that is the way I've always thought of it.

 

[Arklatex]

YouTube - Bob Marley - Judge Not

"Judge not! You're not ready for judgment!" - Bob Marley first song he ever recorded

 

[MelissaWV]

The problem with that definition is that it leaves definition of terrorism to government and media manipulation. Also it's impossible to fully measure impact. I'm sure some doctors changed their security regime after the abortion bombings. And perhaps there will greater scrutiny of private airplanes after this attack. But that really doesn't matter. If someone is seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to change political discourse, that's terrorism. The underwear bomber shouldn't have caused the panic reaction that it did. After all, his dad told the FBI ahead of time to look out for his son. But the government hyped (elements) of the story for their own purposes. But maybe your argument is that the government and the media are the only terrorists because they are the only ones that can successfully manipulate the masses to a fear reaction from any particular event?

The media's a big help to terrorists, yes, though they are not "the only ones that can successfully manipulate the masses." They're a tool through which people hear of events. Much smaller scale and a little funny... at the office there's someone who... let's just say that from what the guy's say, this man needs a doctor/exorcist/nutritionist, not to mention a little help with how to use a modern toilet. He's been dubbed the toilet terrorist. Most of the guys now walk two buildings over to use another toilet, it's gotten so bad. Everyone walks past the men's room door (it's between our offices and the exit) holding their breath, for fear that the smells-so-bad-we-can-taste-it stench will be there, even when it's not. We learned of our "terrorist" a totally different way.

Yep, the media decides who should be "feared" and that's a big factor in modern "terrorism." Real terrorists, of course, know this and try their damnedest to use the media to their advantage.

Government policy and stories of corruption for instance, in my DEA example, are not really spread around directly by the media. People in immigrant communities get pretty scared of la Migra based off of stories they hear of being dragged off (legal or no) in the middle of the night. There's an awful lot of overlap in the world on this, and I know the way I define it is problematic. It's just the way I see it.

 

[hopeforamerica]

The words terrorist and terrorism have been used so much in this thread, I feel like I'm watching Giuliani in the 2008 Presidential debates...lol!

 

[jmdrake]

Interesting anecdotes, but a few people here and a few people there aren't "the masses". I'd guarantee that across this entire nation some IRS agent is rethinking his job based on this attack. Based on the definition you gave that makes it "terrorism". But you want to a large scale disruption of life unless the government and/or media decides to hype this story. You mentioned the anthrax scare earlier. Did you notice how quickly it dropped off the radar after it was confirmed that the anthrax came from the U.S. military? And almost every violent crime that happens anywhere scares somebody. I'm sure the University of Alabama at Huntsville is rethinking its security protocols after the triple murder there. But was that the intent of the killer, or did she just have it out for those particular people and that was a convenient target? It just doesn't make sense to shift the definition of a crime from the intent of the perpetrator to the reaction of the victims.

The media's a big help to terrorists, yes, though they are not "the only ones that can successfully manipulate the masses." They're a tool through which people hear of events. Much smaller scale and a little funny... at the office there's someone who... let's just say that from what the guy's say, this man needs a doctor/exorcist/nutritionist, not to mention a little help with how to use a modern toilet. He's been dubbed the toilet terrorist. Most of the guys now walk two buildings over to use another toilet, it's gotten so bad. Everyone walks past the men's room door (it's between our offices and the exit) holding their breath, for fear that the smells-so-bad-we-can-taste-it stench will be there, even when it's not. We learned of our "terrorist" a totally different way.

Yep, the media decides who should be "feared" and that's a big factor in modern "terrorism." Real terrorists, of course, know this and try their damnedest to use the media to their advantage.

Government policy and stories of corruption for instance, in my DEA example, are not really spread around directly by the media. People in immigrant communities get pretty scared of la Migra based off of stories they hear of being dragged off (legal or no) in the middle of the night. There's an awful lot of overlap in the world on this, and I know the way I define it is problematic. It's just the way I see it.

 

[constituent]

I'm glad we have gotten word from one of our elected officials. The police are still saying it wasn't terrorism, perhaps with the intentions of just ensuring people don't freak out.

wonder if it could be a territory issue between APD and various frederal investigators?