Man angry at IRS crashes plane into Texas building

[thegodfather]

Hello again muslim propagandist.

First of all this has nothing to do with the middle east. There is little connection between what the gvmt charges this guy and the money spent in the middle east. In fact there isn't even a connection anymore between total tax dollars spent or collected.

Also, Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, we called him one, we still call him one even after we killed him...white or not, he was executed for being a terrorist...so what's your point? Bin Ladden is a terroisit, and we either have killed him, he died on his own, or we plan to kill him. However, unlike McVeigh, who was a lone wolf, Bin Ladden runs a network of terrorists. If Timothy McVeigh had been using religion to recruit members of a certain church or something...you might be able to create some kind of parallel. However, your one track mind has once again exposed itself as inferior and racially motivated.

An article you should read...

Terrorism: The Most Meaningless and Manipulated Word
By Glenn Greenwald
Also by Glenn Greenwald:
Krugman on Secrecy and Scandal 01/19/10

Published 02/20/10

Bookmark and Share Printer-friendly version

Yesterday, Joseph Stack deliberately flew an airplane into a building housingIRSoffices in Austin, Texas, in order to advance the political grievances he outlined in a perfectly cogent suicide-manifesto. Stack's worldview contained elements of the tea party's anti-government anger along with substantial populist complaints generally associated with "the Left"(rage over bailouts, the suffering of America's poor, and the pilfering of the middle class by a corrupt economic elite and their government-servants). All of that was accompanied by an argument as to why violence was justified (indeed necessary)to protest those injustices:

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the "great" depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn't it ironic how far we've come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn't have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it's "business-as-usual" . . . . Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.

Despite all that, The New York Times' Brian Stelter documents the deep reluctance of cable news chatterers and government officials to label the incident an act of "terrorism," even though -- as Dave Neiwert ably documents -- it perfectly fits, indeed is a classic illustration of, every official definition of that term. The issue isn't whether Stack's grievances are real or his responses just; it is that the act unquestionably comports with the official definition. But as NBC's Pete Williams said of the official insistence that this was not an act of Terrorism: there are "a couple of reasons to say that . . . One is he’s an American citizen." Fox News' Megan Kelley asked Catherine Herridge about these denials:"I take it that they mean terrorism in the larger sense that most of us are used to?," to which Herridge replied: "they mean terrorism in that capital T way."

All of this underscores, yet again, that Terrorism is simultaneously the single most meaningless and most manipulated word in the American political lexicon. The term now has virtually nothing to do with the act itself and everything to do with the identity of the actor, especially his or her religious identity. It has really come to mean:"a Muslim who fights against or even expresses hostility towards theUnited States, Israel and their allies." That's why all of this confusion and doubt arose yesterday over whether a person who perpetrated a classic act of Terrorism should, in fact, be called a Terrorist:he's not a Muslim and isn't acting on behalf of standard Muslim grievances against the U.S. or Israel, and thus does not fit the "definition." One might concede that perhaps there's some technical sense in which term might apply to Stack, but as Fox News emphasized: it's not "terrorism in the larger sense that most of us are used to . . . terrorism in that capital T way."We all know who commits terrorism in "that capital T way,"and it's not people named Joseph Stack.

Contrast the collective hesitance to call Stack a Terrorist with the extremely dubious circumstances under which that term is reflexively applied to Muslims. If a Muslim attacks a military base preparing to deploy soldiers to a war zone, that person is a Terrorist. If an American Muslim argues that violence against theU.S. (particularly when aimed at military targets)is justified due to American violence aimed at the Muslim world, that person is a Terrorist who deserves assassination. And if the U.S. military invades a Muslim country, Muslims who live in the invaded and occupied country and who fight back against the invadingAmerican army -- by attacking nothing but military targets -- are also Terrorists. Indeed, large numbers of detainees at Guantanamo were accused of being Terrorists for nothing more than attacking members of an invading foreign army in their country, including 14-year-old Mohamed Jawad, who spent many years in Guantanamo, accused (almost certainly falsely)of throwing a grenade at two American troops in Afghanistan who were part of an invading force in that country. Obviously, plots targeting civilians for death -- the 9/11 attacks and attempts to blow up civilian aircraft -- are pure terrorism, but a huge portion of the acts committed by Muslims that receive that label are not.

[Kratos]

Despite all that, The New York Times' Brian Stelter documents the deep reluctance of cable news chatterers and government officials to label the incident an act of "terrorism," even though -- as Dave Neiwert ably documents -- it perfectly fits, indeed is a classic illustration of, every official definition of that term..

I think now that it's over, we can all agree it is terrorism and he is a terrorist. Some people might agree with him, but he's still a terrorist either way.

I don't agree with the media making that distinction. I understand why they do, but there is a better way. They could say, "this doesn't appear to be islamic terrorism, or foreign terrorism ect."

If they come out and call him a domestic terrorist (which is what he is) right after it happens, people are going to freak out. They'll hear the word terrorist and not the word you put in front of it. They can affirm what he is not correctly however.

It is the fault of islamic terrorism that it becomes hard to throw around the term terrorist at all without people making racial or religious assumptions. I don't feel all that guilty for the evoloution of the language.