Domestic political violence (USA)

[tequila]

So, if a Muslim piloted a plane into a Federal building, would anyone question if this was a terrorist incident or not?

[J Wolfsberger]

So, if a Muslim piloted a plane into a Federal building, would anyone question if this was a terrorist incident or not?

If he left the same parting missive, omitted mention of practicing Islam, and omitted the phrase "Alahu ahkbar," I wouldn't call it terrorism. I agree with Ken, and I think this was a guy with employment and tax problems who decided to go out with a parting shot at the organization he blamed for his problems.

[Schmedlap]

I guess he didn't get the tax refund he was expecting.

I'm with Ken and Wolf, but I would take it a step further. If this were a Muslim who slammed his plane into a government building because he was angry about our policies in the Mideast, I don't even think that would qualify as terrorism. Terrorism has a purpose of using fear and violence of achieve some political objective. If you're just lashing out at something that you hate, that's not terrorism. It's disenfranchisement, desperation, despair, anger, but not terrorism.

[slapout9]

Have to go with Zenpundit on this one.

http://zenpundit.com/

[tequila]

If this were a Muslim who slammed his plane into a government building because he was angry about our policies in the Mideast, I don't even think that would qualify as terrorism. Terrorism has a purpose of using fear and violence of achieve some political objective.

I think that very few people in the public sphere would share your definition IF this guy's name had been Abu Snuffy and he'd left a rant about Israel or Afghanistan on a Facebook page somewhere.

Given what we know, I'd put this guy, Abdulhakim Mohammad, MAJ Hasan, Richard Poplawski, and the Holocaust museum shooter in the same general category. All had major grievances that were based in political/religious ideology, but all also appear to have had significant personal dysfunctions. None appear to have acted as part of an organized group or had a realistic hope that their actions would achieve any kind of political objective, BUT their targets were clearly chosen for political/religious reasons.

I think choice of target + some political/religious motivation = a terrorist act. A different sort of terrorist than, say, KSM, but one nonetheless.

[Ken White]

I think choice of target + some political/religious motivation = a terrorist act. A different sort of terrorist than, say, KSM, but one nonetheless.

but I believe you, slap and Zenpundit are giving nutcases more credit than they deserve. You may certainly call it terrorism but I doubt anyone other than the specific victims at the time were anywhere near terrorized...

As you say:

...None appear to have acted as part of an organized group or had a realistic hope that their actions would achieve any kind of political objective...

Seems to me that is true and thus we're describing abberant actions that do not reach a threshold of inspiring terror.

I think the only reason to call those acts terroristic is for political purposes...

[slapout9]

You may certainly call it terrorism but I doubt anyone other than the specific victims at the time were anywhere near terrorized...

I think the IRS might disagree.

[Schmedlap]

I think that very few people in the public sphere would share your definition IF this guy's name had been Abu Snuffy and he'd left a rant about Israel or Afghanistan on a Facebook page somewhere.

Well, that may be true, but I wasn't using the "most people" standard. Most people regard terrorism as some violent crime, committed by someone who doesn't look like me, for reasons rooted in political grievances that don't resonate with me. In other words, it's not a useful term because it is too broad, nebulous, and subjective.

According to the USA Patriot Act, Joe was a Domestic Terrorist (acts of terrorism in the United States carried out by American citizens).

I don't think that is clear.

Section 802(a)(5) says that

the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

I think a good argument can be made that this act appears to be intended as retribution against an agency that he was angry toward, rather than any of the three "appear to be intended" provisions of the act.

Besides, that's just a legal definition necessary for the operation of provisions in the Patriot Act. That doesn't make it a useful definition for anything not related to the Patriot Act.

[Entropy]

Well, the issue here is clearly one of definition. Defining "terrorism" and fitting events into defnitions isn't often straightforward. In short, I think terrorism is a bit like beauty - in the eye of the beholder.

[Stan]

I guess he didn't get the tax refund he was expecting.

And the irony is our taxes will only increase as they fix his mess

I'm with Ken and Wolf, but I would take it a step further. If this were a Muslim who slammed his plane into a government building because he was angry about our policies in the Mideast, I don't even think that would qualify as terrorism. Terrorism has a purpose of using fear and violence of achieve some political objective. If you're just lashing out at something that you hate, that's not terrorism. It's disenfranchisement, desperation, despair, anger, but not terrorism.

Concur. I'm a little worn out with how easily we come to use terms like terrorist and IED lately. Seems to fit and government financing is too easy.

Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well. 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. Joe Stack (1956-2010) 02/18/2010”

At 53 he just had enough. Should have gone after those rich weenies that manipulate instead of the finance ladies who couldn't change a light bulb.