Flying planes into buildings is not terrorism?

BluePlanet

Regarding the story in Austin TX that a US Citizen commandeered a plane into a government building.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703315004575073401102945506.html
They are saying it was a "criminal act", but not a "terrorist attac".
I fail to see the difference.
The nutter was a suicide bomber if you ask me.

Why are they saying it wasn't terrorism?

Memnoch

Considering it was a politically motivated act of violence against the state, I can't see how it can be defined as anything BUT terrorism. I'm not sure what the logic is here.

BluePlanet

Maybe only brown-skinned people can commit terrorist attacks?

whynotwhycanti

He wasn't one of 'them' so couldn't have been a terrorist.

silverharp

so what do you define when someone goes "US Postal"? Surely its fits more into this category?

BluePlanet

Silverharp2 wrote: »

so what do you define when someone goes "US Postal"? Surely its fits more into this category?

Nope, going Postal means:

Going postal, in American English slang, means becoming extremely and uncontrollably angry, often to the point of violence, and usually in a workplace environment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal

This guy didn't work at the IRS building.

Overheal

A Workplace environment, not Your workplace environment

Olive Branch: http://rawstory.com/2010/02/expert-crash-domestic-terrorism/

Though Wikipedia Defines terrorism as "violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)."

Thing was, he was one Man, not an organisation. There is no threat of repeat attacks (unlike say, 9/11) And it was not coercive in so much that "If you dont give me back my taxes/free our brothers in Palestine etc. I'll keep bombing buildings until I get my way" sort of way. It was more of a last ditch cry for attention. One greatly condemned, though many people have been left mulling over his last words.

Of course thanks to the joys of Meta-Contribution, the attack is already listed on the 2010 Terrorist Attacks list.

Whether or not its a Terrorist act has already become a point of contention. Good question to raise.

Memnoch

Overheal wrote: »

A Workplace environment, not Your workplace environment

Olive Branch: http://rawstory.com/2010/02/expert-crash-domestic-terrorism/

Though Wikipedia Defines terrorism as "violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)."

Thing was, he was one Man, not an organisation. There is no threat of repeat attacks (unlike say, 9/11) And it was not coercive in so much that "If you dont give me back my taxes/free our brothers in Palestine etc. I'll keep bombing buildings until I get my way" sort of way. It was more of a last ditch cry for attention. One greatly condemned, though many people have been left mulling over his last words.

Of course thanks to the joys of Meta-Contribution, the attack is already listed on the 2010 Terrorist Attacks list.

Whether or not its a Terrorist act has already become a point of contention. Good question to raise.

I take issue with the wiki definition, specifically in that just because it is a lone attack, does not mean it's not ideologically motivated.

What is worrying from a general point of view is that before 9/11 such an act would SURELY have been branded as terrorism. There have been incidents for decades involving lone attackers acting on their own that have been classified as terrorist acitivity. This pattern of redefinition of terms such as "terrorism," "enemy combatant" "torture" to suit political agendas is dangerous and conterproductive.

This guy was obviously motivated by ideology. Obviously he felt he wasn't being heard in what he was trying to say and this was his way of making sure his message was heard and brought attention to the reasons behind his actions, which, if he had actually succeeded in killing people would have drawn even more scrutiny. This is exactly the way terrorism works. People trying to make a political statement.

I don't understand how "whether or not this is a terrorist attack" is a legitimate question in any way.

Overheal

Memnoch wrote: »

I take issue with the wiki definition, specifically in that just because it is a lone attack, does not mean it's not ideologically motivated.

Sure but while it is an ideological attack, it doesnt fit all the markers.

What is worrying from a general point of view is that before 9/11 such an act would SURELY have been branded as terrorism. There have been incidents for decades involving lone attackers acting on their own that have been classified as terrorist acitivity. This pattern of redefinition of terms such as "terrorism," "enemy combatant" "torture" to suit political agendas is dangerous and conterproductive.

You speak as though 9/11 was carried out by one man. nvm

This guy was obviously motivated by ideology. Obviously he felt he wasn't being heard in what he was trying to say and this was his way of making sure his message was heard and brought attention to the reasons behind his actions, which, if he had actually succeeded in killing people would have drawn even more scrutiny. This is exactly the way terrorism works. People trying to make a political statement.

I don't understand how "whether or not this is a terrorist attack" is a legitimate question in any way.

Violence for an Ideology by itself I think is only half of what makes terrorism Terrorism. What seperates Joseph Stack; and Timothy McVeigh and the DC Snipers and the Unabomber (and the Anthrax mailings) is that they all planned to carry out a calculated series of attacks in conjuction with that Ideology. The effect of which is to inspire fear and mass hysteria in such a way that you know another attack may be coming, but you don't know when.

And the only thing that Seperates McVeigh from the Unabomber is he got caught the first time. Both were deeply intent on what I would consider Terrorism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

McVeigh frequently quoted and alluded to the white supremacist novel The Turner Diaries. It described acts of terrorism similar to the one he carried out. While McVeigh openly rejected the book's racism (a roommate said that McVeigh was not a racist and was basically indifferent to racist matters),[84] he claimed to appreciate its interest in firearms. Photocopies of pages sixty-one and sixty-two of The Turner Diaries were found in an envelope inside McVeigh's car. These pages depicted a fictitious mortar attack upon the U.S. Capitol in Washington.[85]

Edit: Outside of what I consider the Traditional definition of Terrorism you have the new buzz definition for Enemy Combatants.... and you know what, I think thats a whole other kettle of clusterf@ck. Either way I personally doubt Stack fits the first Category; Im less certain about the latter.

BennyLava

Overheal wrote: »

Thing was, he was one Man, not an organisation. There is no threat of repeat attacks (unlike say, 9/11) And it was not coercive in so much that "If you dont give me back my taxes/free our brothers in Palestine etc. I'll keep bombing buildings until I get my way" sort of way. It was more of a last ditch cry for attention. One greatly condemned, though many people have been left mulling over his last words.

Of course thanks to the joys of Meta-Contribution, the attack is already listed on the 2010 Terrorist Attacks list.

Whether or not its a Terrorist act has already become a point of contention. Good question to raise.

Technically thought, every act of suicide bombing is a once off for the perpetrator, with no chance of repeating

Black Swan

It's context, content, and ideology laden; e.g., one group's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

BluePlanet

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

It's context, content, and ideology laden; e.g., one group's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Exactly.
I believe that if this event were perpetrated by an arab, muslim on a work visa; it would be a "terrorist attack".
But because it was done by "one of their own" ie: white, middleclass american; it's a "criminal act".
(not even an Attack btw)

Memnoch

Overheal wrote: »

Sure but while it is an ideological attack, it doesnt fit all the markers.

Markers as set by whom? Please define these markers as you consider them.

Violence for an Ideology by itself I think is only half of what makes terrorism Terrorism. What seperates Joseph Stack; and Timothy McVeigh and the DC Snipers and the Unabomber (and the Anthrax mailings) is that they all planned to carry out a calculated series of attacks in conjuction with that Ideology. The effect of which is to inspire fear and mass hysteria in such a way that you know another attack may be coming, but you don't know when.

And the only thing that Seperates McVeigh from the Unabomber is he got caught the first time. Both were deeply intent on what I would consider Terrorism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

Edit: Outside of what I consider the Traditional definition of Terrorism you have the new buzz definition for Enemy Combatants.... and you know what, I think thats a whole other kettle of clusterf@ck.

So if a British born Muslim, without any support from any one else or discussing his intentions with anyone else, makes a home made explosive and blows himself up in a crowded train, or steals a plane and flies it into a building then it is not an act of terrorism according to the above definition? Since he doesn't plan on doing anything else and isn't part of any organisation that has such plans?

Edit: I don't want to get into a debate about the term "Enemy combatants" except to say that these new words and definitions are part of a disturbing pattern.

wes

Seems like a pretty clear act of terorrism. Very surprised that the US government isn't calling it like it is. It does smack of hypocrisy, as if this guy was Muslim, everyone and there dog would call it terrorism.

Manic Moran

In order for something to be terrorism, it has to have the intent of causing terror. In effect, "You never know when someone paying taxes might fly another GA airplane into a building." There must be the threat of a subsequent action.

There is, to my knowledge, no such extant threat. The guy had, as far as is known, no supporters. Nobody else willing to carry out acts of violence for the cause. There is no need for citizens to suddenly worry (any more than normal) about a bomb being placed in/near an IRS office.

NTM

Uriel.

I think we need to be careful how and when we affix the lable "terrorist" in situations. This guy, potentially, bonkers (I say potentially because we just don't know what was going on with him yet), flys a plane into a building. If this happened prior to 9/11 - there's a good chance the word terrorism wouldn't even spring to mind.

That guy who drove down Henry Street, Dublin, Ireland a couple of years ago (think he was from an African country, although that matters little), subsequently knocking down a number of pedestrians - could he be described as a "terrorist"?

BluePlanet

I remember recently this guy went Postal and shot dead 12 people at his place of work.
Oh yeah, that was the Fort Hood shooting.

Interestingly, the mainstream media express only slight reservations labeling that a terrorist attack.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/07/terrorism-tragic-shooting-analysts-divided-fort-hood-massacre/

Overheal

BluePlanet wrote: »

I remember recently this guy went Postal and shot dead 12 people at his place of work.
Oh yeah, that was the Fort Hood shooting.

Interestingly, the mainstream media express only slight reservations labeling that a terrorist attack.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/07/terrorism-tragic-shooting-analysts-divided-fort-hood-massacre/

On the contrary the article you link to seems to mention almost this thread's exact academic quandry: was the Ft. Hood a Terrorist attack, or wasn't it?

Which doesn't exactly fit with your previous stance:

Exactly.
I believe that if this event were perpetrated by an arab, muslim on a work visa; it would be a "terrorist attack".
But because it was done by "one of their own" ie: white, middleclass american; it's a "criminal act".
(not even an Attack btw)

The_Conductor

There are plenty of different homegrown groups with various gripes against the federal government- many of whom do not pay tax as a matter of principle, many of whom have stockpiled arms (and various other supplies)- who are also not generically considered to be terrorist groups. While their intention may be more to protest and exercise self sufficiency- they are operating outside of societal norms, and many people who do subscribe to the rights and obligations that living in normal society entails- consider them to be terrorists.

I'm not sure that there is any comfortable definition of terrorism to be honest- other than an act perpetrated with the intention of instilling terror in a populace.

This guy's suicide was both an act of desperation, but also a political statement- and it was intended to make a point- not to terrorise the population at large. Thus- it was a political statement (and multiple homicide) rather than an act of terrorism..........

?

Overheal

Intriguing. But are these homegrown groups out there waging a war with these stockpiles or just expressing their Independence non-violently?

The_Conductor

Overheal wrote: »

Intriguing. But are these homegrown groups out there waging a war with these stockpiles or just expressing their Independence non-violently?

Depends- they are breaking the law by stockpiling arms, and attempts by the ATF to enforce the law led to Waco and other similar armed standoffs........

Anyhow- since when was a group of people in any country allowed to 'declare their independence' from central government- its a simple recipe for civil war....... I'd love to not pay taxes, and only implement laws that were of personal interest to me- would I bear arms to achieve this aim- no, I wouldn't. Would I fly a plane from Weston into the Department of Finance on Merrion Row- no, I wouldn't. Would I employ a good accountant and do my damndest to pay as little tax as possible- yes, I would.......

Some people play from within the system- others are not satisfied to even recognise the system. Until the latter become a menace to that society- normally they are on the fringes, and are tolerated in the main. Does the fact that law abiding members of society consider those who refuse to recognise the rule of law of that society as a menace, mean they are terrorists? I don't think so........

Overheal

.......but if and when they go around shooting up the place, then yes, they could be labeled as a homegrown terrorist movement, in your scenario.

The_Conductor

Overheal wrote: »

.......but if and when they go around shooting up the place, then yes, they could be labeled as a homegrown terrorist movement, in your scenario.

Certainly. They don't tend to though- thats the point- so while they may be considered a menace to society in general (for several reasons), they are not considered to be terrorists.

karmaking

Terrorism - ' the unofficial use of violence and intimidation in an attempt to achieve political aims'

When Muslims flew into Twin towers in 9/11 it was not a terrorist attack, it was just the lovely american and english governments giving you a name to call them because when you fly into a tower of a building hundreds of miles from the country your fighting for it will get you no 'political aims'.
When that guy decided to burn his house and fly his ****ing plane into tax offices that wasnt very terrorist but sure was funny...
Especialy when the sky news reporter said " We are assuming that he knew he would die":)

The_Conductor

karmaking wrote: »

Terrorism - ' the unofficial use of violence and intimidation in an attempt to achieve political aims'

How do you differentiate between 'official' and 'unofficial' use of violence or intimidation though? Is it whether the act perpetrated is by a single person (who then would not have the act sanctioned) or a group- who presumably would have a central decision structure that has sanctioned the action- which by virtue of the act being sanctioned- means its not terrorism?

In a lot of ways the statement one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter- does make a lot of sense- and the terrorists of yesterday have in many cases turned to be the politicians of today........

Do the political aims of a group like the former Tamil Tigers mean their actions were automatically acts of terrorism- had they achieved their goals of an automonous homeland- they would doubtless have been recognised as a legitimate state. Israel was founded as a result of the terrorist activities of groups of hooligans in the British Protectorate of Palestine- yet most people gloss over the bombings and killings- as a legitimate means to an end. Were the actions sanctioned- who knows?

Terrorism really is a fluid term- its far easier to define actions as criminal in nature- than it is to call them acts of terrorism. For political reasons- it suits to label all manner of often legitimate protest as the acts as terrorists- and indeed in some cases, legitimate protests have been forcibly attacked in order to provoke violence by armed groups (or even individuals) and thus justify a politically motivated crackdown. Even going local here- think of the Bloody Sunday massacre at Derry........

Overheal

smccarrick wrote: »

In a lot of ways the statement one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter- does make a lot of sense- and the terrorists of yesterday have in many cases turned to be the politicians of today........

Terrorism really is a fluid term- its far easier to define actions as criminal in nature- than it is to call them acts of terrorism. For political reasons- it suits to label all manner of often legitimate protest as the acts as terrorists- and indeed in some cases, legitimate protests have been forcibly attacked in order to provoke violence by armed groups (or even individuals) and thus justify a politically motivated crackdown. Even going local here- think of the Bloody Sunday massacre at Derry........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

"We weren't terrorists," Ayers told an interviewer for the Chicago Tribune in 2001. "The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States."[4]

In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism — individual, group and official". He also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks in that letter. "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."[35]

rich1874

I don't think this can be considered an act of terrorism. For one thing I don't think the bomber had any particular ideology, he was just really angry at whatever tax issue was at play.

If I vandalise a pay phone, because it took my quarter, surely this can't be considered an act of terrorism. If I gather a group of people and form an ideology against payphones and start randomly destroying payphones, then this may be construed as terrorism.(i used a payphone analogy because they can be considered public(and sometimes federal property).

It seems that so many acts these days can be blanketed with the term terrorism, and I think the US authorithies have done the right thing by clearly isolating this as a criminal act. Bandying around the term terrorism only creates hysteria and fear which is completely unnecessary in this case.

The_Conductor

rich1874 wrote: »

Bandying around the term terrorism only creates hysteria and fear which is completely unnecessary in this case.

Bandying around the term 'terrorism' is a form of terrorism in itself.......?

rich1874

Bandying around the term 'terrorism' is a form of terrorism in itself.......?

Hmmmm perhaps i needed a better choice of words. But in a sense isn't that right? 'Let's keep using the word terrorism to keep our citizens afraid so we can keep them under a tight leash and justify our illegal foreign policy.' Sounds about right. Which is why i'm surprised but also relieved that the authorithes didn't use the term terrorism in this case.

Rookster

9/11 was not a terrorist attack. That is only propaganda by the west. It was repayment for the US piss**g on these people for decades. Ground zero? What a laugh. How come there is no ground zero in Iraq where hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been murdered. 9/11 was nothing. They deserved a lot more.

whynotwhycanti

i think the authorities didnt use the word terrorism to describe it as they have completely moved the goalposts on what it is exactly, and have to stay true to their rhetoric of modern day terrorism i.e. extreme islam etc

I think it does fall under the term of a terroist act, yeah he was pissed off but fundamentaly believed he was being screwed and acted accrodingly. Interesteingly, the first recorded act of terrorism was in france in the 1800's (not sure on exact date) and a guy walked into an upper classs cafe in Paris and tried to set off a bomb to highlight the growing gap between the upper classes and the lower classes.

Overheal

rich1874 wrote: »

I don't think this can be considered an act of terrorism. For one thing I don't think the bomber had any particular ideology, he was just really angry at whatever tax issue was at play.

If I vandalise a pay phone, because it took my quarter, surely this can't be considered an act of terrorism. If I gather a group of people and form an ideology against payphones and start randomly destroying payphones, then this may be construed as terrorism.(i used a payphone analogy because they can be considered public(and sometimes federal property).

It seems that so many acts these days can be blanketed with the term terrorism, and I think the US authorithies have done the right thing by clearly isolating this as a criminal act. Bandying around the term terrorism only creates hysteria and fear which is completely unnecessary in this case.

You're comparing vandalising an inanimate object for eating 25 cents; and suicide bombing an IRS facility, and taking your life and the life of others - at which point its not about the taxed money anymore.

rich1874

You're comparing vandalising an inanimate object for eating 25 cents; and suicide bombing an IRS facility, and taking your life and the life of others - at which point its not about the taxed money anymore

Ok then scrap the payphone analogy. If a kid, unhappy with his life in school, goes and shoots 20 kids and then kills himself, can we paint that with the terrorism brush? He created terror didn't he? If it's a public school is he committing a terrorist act against a public institution? No, nobody ever calls those cases acts of terrorism.

So similarly if a guy is pissed off because he has tax issues and goes and shoots a couple of IRS men, then would this be called terrorism? Oh no wait, he used a plane and there was an explosion, oh it must be a terrorist.

Overheal

rich1874 wrote: »

Ok then scrap the payphone analogy. If a kid, unhappy with his life in school, goes and shoots 20 kids and then kills himself, can we paint that with the terrorism brush? He created terror didn't he? If it's a public school is he committing a terrorist act against a public institution? No, nobody ever calls those cases acts of terrorism.

So similarly if a guy is pissed off because he has tax issues and goes and shoots a couple of IRS men, then would this be called terrorism? Oh no wait, he used a plane and there was an explosion, oh it must be a terrorist.

No, if it wasnt for the suicide note full of rambling ideology he would have been dismissed as a crazy disgruntled cubicle guy.

He published his manifesto, burned his house and stole a plane in what was surely a very premeditated attack with the end result of making a very political statement while getting a bucketload of attention doing it.

But now to add more tinder to this discussion, what of the homemade tank rampage in 2004?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/06/05/bulldozer.rampage/

Clearly premeditated, but it stinks of petty revenge, not a greater ideological gesture aimed at calling attention to Zoning Disputes... He was acting out of his own petty anger, whereas the plane guy pretty much proclaimed he was acting on behalf of everyone being affected by that section of the tax code, or some such malarky.