Plane hits a building in Austin

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Do you really believe that, or are you just trying to be intentionally asshattish?

A guy made an act of terror by crashing a plane into a federal building. It is known that he did it intentionally. Someone from the white house just came out and said this was not an act of terrorism on CNN. Here's an online version:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSW...pe=marketsNews

The White House said the crash of a small plane in the Texas state capital Austin on Thursday did not appear to be terrorism and that President Barack Obama had been briefed about the incident.

What could be possibly be more of an act of terrorism than this?

Add in what Napolitano said on an earlier issue:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

And I just don't understand why this administration refuses to acknowledge acts of terrorism (regardless of the race of the terrorist).

[molson]

It just sounds like he was a really shitty businessman who tried to get cute with taxes.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i thought he stole the plane?

Last I heard (its been a couple hours since I've caught up on the story, so it may have changed) he owned a plane, explaining why he knew how to fly, and that plane was probably the one he crashed. Initially it looked like he might have stolen a plane different than the one he owned, but last I heard they were under the assumption it was his.

[molson]

I'm not sure what's sillier, Bush's overuse of the word "terrorism" or the Obama administraition's refusal to use it (except in noting that there was no terrorism when a guy crashes a plane into a federal building)

[Tigercat]

To be somewhat fair, I think there has always been a school of thought that the actions and the agenda of ONE isolated crazy person isn't terrorism. You could certainly call the unibomber a terrorist and not be wrong in the least, you could call any serial killer that. But more often than not terrorism is used when the movement behind an action can be traced beyond just one person. Given the nature of the rambling crazy in the man's note, I don't think that case can be made.

[Solecismic]

I'm guessing the White House misspoke. I can't see how it's not an act of terrorism, in that he used violence against innocent people to express his political viewpoint.

However, it's not a current threat to public safety in that there's apparently no group he belonged to that organized this act of terrorism.

[Bigsmooth]

Hard to disagree with his manifesto IMO. If he hadn't harmed others (not sure if there is a body count?) then I'd say he is a noble SOB.

This isn't just about being a bad business man or being cute with his taxes. It seems to be more about being overwhelmed and dissillusioned with the state of the "system". In a crazy way, he's trying to wake people up.

[lungs]

Cue both sides of the political spectrum trying to pin this guy on the other side. I've already seen anti-Christian Communist thrown around by the right. I'm sure the left is calling him an anti-government guy.

Reading his manifesto, I'd just say he is anti-everything.

[Antmeister]

Seriously, why are people constantly trying to score political points in a tragedy? It doesn't really matter what you call it since this is just some random act no one could have prevented regardless of the political viewpoint.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Arles

And I just don't understand why this administration refuses to acknowledge acts of terrorism (regardless of the race of the terrorist).

Maybe it's like when you work in a restaurant and they have that sign that says " It has been X days since the last reported accident" except in the whitehouse it says "It has been X number of days since a terrorist attack on US soil" and there is a bonus when they hit a certain number.

[Young Drachma]

I think the word terrorism, as it relates to the U.S. is really focused on the acts of foreigners against our people/government or whatever. Whereas these acts of domestic terrorism are distinguished, simply because they conjure up different images and frankly, would be fought through different methods than the tactics you'd use to fight some terrorist from somewhere around the globe.

Doesn't make it right, but...I think that's the hesitance to call these acts terrorism. I'm finding the whole "maybe dude had a point" commentary of the folks on television to be a bit...ridiculous.

I do, however, think that we'll see more of these kinds of things as people become more and more disillusioned with the system as it is. Because as it stands right now, we're selling a lot of people a bill of goods and it's not until it hits them, that they start to realize how much of our society is built on a house of cards.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

Seriously, why are people constantly trying to score political points in a tragedy? It doesn't really matter what you call it since this is just some random act no one could have prevented regardless of the political viewpoint.

Feh. You and your "wisdom". Just whose side are you on, anyways?

[flere-imsaho]

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by lungs

Cue both sides of the political spectrum trying to pin this guy on the other side. I've already seen anti-Christian Communist thrown around by the right. I'm sure the left is calling him an anti-government guy.

Reading his manifesto, I'd just say he is anti-everything.

In the immortal words of Chris Rock

"whatever happened to crazy?"

[Bigsmooth]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I do, however, think that we'll see more of these kinds of things as people become more and more disillusioned with the system as it is. Because as it stands right now, we're selling a lot of people a bill of goods and it's not until it hits them, that they start to realize how much of our society is built on a house of cards.

That's what I was trying to spit out. Well said.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Arles

A guy made an act of terror by crashing a plane into a federal building. It is known that he did it intentionally. Someone from the white house just came out and said this was not an act of terrorism on CNN. Here's an online version:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSW...pe=marketsNews



What could be possibly be more of an act of terrorism than this?

And I just don't understand why this administration refuses to acknowledge acts of terrorism (regardless of the race of the terrorist).

As an aside, I wish you'd take the time you spend informing us that the White House doesn't consider this terrorism (and all the wonderful other Health Care insights) and redirect it to a singular post about your game.

I mean, can't everything be called terrorism in one way? It's probably being underused by this admin because it's overused by the previous one. I'm sure all the conservatives will lineup at their CPAC or whatever to rail on about this one guy being a major indicator that Obama is soft and use it to scare the rednecks to the ballot boxes. I'm sure the White House will use it to show how much everyone is fed up with Republicans in some manner. If Obama coming out and saying we are never safe from terrorists like this would make you feel better, perhaps you should tweet it to Mr. Gibbs.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I was chatting with Bill Harris about this situation. He works a couple hundred yards from this building. I'm sure he'll post about his experience on his blog in the coming days.

You and Bill are pretty tight, eh?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

To be somewhat fair, I think there has always been a school of thought that the actions and the agenda of ONE isolated crazy person isn't terrorism. You could certainly call the unibomber a terrorist and not be wrong in the least, you could call any serial killer that. But more often than not terrorism is used when the movement behind an action can be traced beyond just one person. Given the nature of the rambling crazy in the man's note, I don't think that case can be made.

No...that's conspiracy. This is terrorism...plain and simple. If it happened in Iraq/Pakistan/Afghanistan it would most definitely be considered that.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by path12

Wait. You think dude flew the plane into the building to smear the teabaggers?

This must be the new Godwin.

I have no idea what Godwin means but maybe was broadly applying the term false flag to this. I don't think the government created some sort of Manchurian candidate and programmed him to do it to discredit the tea party movement.

I do however think that the government will use this as a warning tale of the craziness that comes with questioning their policies. Like many have said in this thread the actions are ridiculous but what caused the actions are views shared by many. I can easily see some sort of task force or crackdown in place even though there doesn't seem to be anything tangible to crack down on.

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm guessing the White House misspoke. I can't see how it's not an act of terrorism, in that he used violence against innocent people to express his political viewpoint.

However, it's not a current threat to public safety in that there's apparently no group he belonged to that organized this act of terrorism.

It's my birthday, could you at least act like you're working on TCY 2?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

It's my birthday, could you at least act like you're working on TCY 2?

I'm working on TCY Junkie 2 if that helps.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by rowech

No...that's conspiracy. This is terrorism...plain and simple. If it happened in Iraq/Pakistan/Afghanistan it would most definitely be considered that.

I don't recall any proclaimed "terrorist" ever working completely on his/her own and working against/on behalf of both sides of international/domestic arguments.

There is textbook definition and then there is the practical use of a word. McVeigh and company at Ok City had a multi person movement to associate with them and were a multi person attack.

The practical use of terrorism in the media has almost always been associated with a conspiracy of thoughts or actions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

I have no idea what Godwin means but maybe was broadly applying the term false flag to this.

Godwin's Law is the one about ending any online conversation once there's a Hitler reference.

I've barely read the thread so I don't have any idea whether/how it applies here but figured I could at least clear that little bit up.

[path12]

Originally Posted by panerd

I do however think that the government will use this as a warning tale of the craziness that comes with questioning their policies. Like many have said in this thread the actions are ridiculous but what caused the actions are views shared by many. I can easily see some sort of task force or crackdown in place even though there doesn't seem to be anything tangible to crack down on.

We just fundamentally disagree on where and why the crazies are being whipped up.

But I've made a promise to myself to stay out of political discussions over the intertubez and so I'll just leave it at that.

Besides, I agree with the thought that not every event needs to be used for politicizing.

[DanGarion]

I blame the VANOC.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Maybe it's like when you work in a restaurant and they have that sign that says " It has been X days since the last reported accident" except in the whitehouse it says "It has been X number of days since a terrorist attack on US soil" and there is a bonus when they hit a certain number.

Sort of like the meme about how no one dies on Disney property I guess.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Godwin's Law is the one about ending any online conversation once there's a Hitler reference.

I've barely read the thread so I don't have any idea whether/how it applies here but figured I could at least clear that little bit up.

I never heard of it. I implied that the government would immediately take advantage of this situation to heighten security (i.e. more government) and used the term false flag. Apparently path12 thought I was invoking the Reichstag fire or something. Don't think this one will go that far but I have noticed a lot of non-news worthy stories lately that seem to be getting air for some reason that are planting the ideas in my mind of a coming false flag...

Police report security breach at Olympics opening - 2010 Olympics - Yahoo! Sports


(maybe I have become too big of a cynic?)

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Surprising that the world doesn't revolve around the West Coast I see...

The world does revolve around the West Coast, we are just too laid back to point it out to the rest of you.

[Arles]

I think it would have been perfectly acceptable to say that this was an act of terrorism by an individual not associated with any known terrorist organization. It's not panicking the masses, but it's also not candy-coating the fact that this person flew a plane into a building to try and make a political point.

It's just difficult to deal with a situation or issue when you refuse to acknowledge it even exists.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I don't recall any proclaimed "terrorist" ever working completely on his/her own and working against/on behalf of both sides of international/domestic arguments.

There is textbook definition and then there is the practical use of a word. McVeigh and company at Ok City had a multi person movement to associate with them and were a multi person attack.

The practical use of terrorism in the media has almost always been associated with a conspiracy of thoughts or actions.

Aye.

i.e.

Cobra is a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by path12

We just fundamentally disagree on where and why the crazies are being whipped up.

But I've made a promise to myself to stay out of political discussions over the intertubez and so I'll just leave it at that.

Besides, I agree with the thought that not every event needs to be used for politicizing.

I get where you are coming from. I don't much enjoy the politicial threads either anymore. I have an opinion and so do other people and I have found nobody really cares about the other side.

I will say to the politicizng this event though... The guy crashed into the IRS building due to government policies, pretty sure that makes it political.

[path12]

Originally Posted by panerd

I will say to the politicizng this event though... The guy crashed into the IRS building due to government policies, pretty sure that makes it political.

To him, yeah. I don't feel the need to try and interpret much more than that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think it would have been perfectly acceptable to say that this was an act of terrorism by an individual not associated with any known terrorist organization. It's not panicking the masses, but it's also not candy-coating the fact that this person flew a plane into a building to try and make a political point.

It's just difficult to deal with a situation or issue when you refuse to acknowledge it even exists.

How would it make any difference whatsoever if Obama said "terrorism"? It's not like he never says it, contrary to right-wing blogs. Would this not have happened if he said terrorism more? Would we be safer tomorrow if he said terrorism today?

[RainMaker]

There needs to be a roundtable to discuss for what we use the word terrorism. I can see it going both ways. He had no regard for others, and seemed to have an ideological goal behind it. However, this didn't seem like something used to create fear among others and was a lone nut.

Are school shooters terrorists? That teacher who shot a bunch of people because she didn't get tenure the other day? Technically you could classify every drive-by shooting as an act of terrorism as it meets all the criteria. Seems the definition we use today only counts terrorism if it's done by a Muslim.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

To be somewhat fair, I think there has always been a school of thought that the actions and the agenda of ONE isolated crazy person isn't terrorism. You could certainly call the unibomber a terrorist and not be wrong in the least, you could call any serial killer that. But more often than not terrorism is used when the movement behind an action can be traced beyond just one person. Given the nature of the rambling crazy in the man's note, I don't think that case can be made.

The definition of terrorism at one time was trying to cause governmental change by creating a state of fear among the populace that causes them to lose faith that the current government can protect them. Under that definition, this is not an act of terrorism, nor is nearly any attack on a government institution. The OKC bombing wasn't terrorism, nor was bombing the USS Cole, but crashing planes into the Twin Towers was, as are the suicide bombers in the Middle East.

I don't know what the current agreed-upon definition is, as that was from when I was most interested in this stuff back in the 80s. I have a vague recollection of flere and I discussing this awhile back in here, but I don't remember what conclusion was reached.

[Arles]

I think an attack made on civilians with the goal of forwarding a political message is an act of terrorism. In a drive by or school shooting (because of not getting tenure), you have individual acts with no real political motive often directed at people they blame for a specific situation in their life.

However, if someone wrote a letter saying that schools are indoctrinating our kids with evil ideas and then goes and shoots up a random school - then I think that most certainly is terrorism.

The only goal of killing innocent civilians as part of a political message is to cause terror in the masses. It doesn't matter if it's done in a government building in Texas or a church in Iraq.

[RainMaker]

Reading through his diatribe, he kind of reminds me of those anti-tax guys that float around (not that they fly buildings into people, but his beliefs). I'm not talking small government, but those that think income tax is illegal, the Amendment wasn't ratified properly, and so on. I worked with a guy like this. Talked non-stop about how he never paid taxes and about James Traficant. I was young but still kind of knew he was a kook. Would constantly try and recruit people into the office by telling them not to let them take too much out of the check because we didn't have to pay taxes.

Eventually the IRS came knocking on his door and he still stood strong. Went to local meetings with the same kind of people. Was certain he would beat the case and find that income tax was unconstitutional. I know they started garnishing his wages at one point and I left the company before I could find out more that happened to him.

In any event, there are people like that out there. Mostly harmless but get into this belief that the IRS is illegal and that everyone is a sucker for paying taxes. When he talked about meetings in the 80's, it might be something similar to that. He decided not to pay taxes and the IRS fucked him for it.

[DanGarion]

To quote Merriam Webster herself.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist \-ər-ist\ adjective or noun
— ter·ror·is·tic \ˌter-ər-ˈis-tik\ adjective

[DanGarion]

According to the great and all knowing minds of the land of Wiki Pedia

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those 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).
Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[4]
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state.)[8][9]. A less politically and emotionally charged, and more easily definable, term is violent non-state actor[10] (though the semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists," while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists").[citation needed]
Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[11] One form is the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.[12]

[Arles]

If he didn't want to cause terror in the masses, why fly the plane into the building?

He didn't care who he killed, he just wanted the US to know his political message and hoped a body count (ie, terror) would forward that notion.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think an attack made on civilians with the goal of forwarding a political message is an act of terrorism. In a drive by or school shooting (because of not getting tenure), you have individual acts with no real political motive often directed at people they blame for a specific situation in their life.

However, if someone wrote a letter saying that schools are indoctrinating our kids with evil ideas and then goes and shoots up a random school - then I think that most certainly is terrorism.

The only goal of killing innocent civilians as part of a political message is to cause terror in the masses. It doesn't matter if it's done in a government building in Texas or a church in Iraq.

I can go with that but it still seems somewhat murky. I mean the KKK would technically not fall into terrorism back in the day when they'd lynch someone or burn a cross on their lawn. Yet they are widely seen as using terroristic methods throughout their time.

And the reason I use the KKK is because I think there is a similarity in that and gang shootings. Often times drive-bys are not about getting revenge on an individual, but about instilling fear in a neighborhood and establishing presence on a particular turf. We don't want Crips on our block can be seen the same way as we don't want blacks on our block.

I just think the term is too loosely defined. When a guy blows up an abortion clinic, he is somewhat sending a political message, but is that any different than one sent by the KKK, a gang, or a school shooter who is speaking out against the "wrongs in society" (in his view).

[digamma]

Here's the difference. Terrorism usually carries some future threat of harm. I'm not really concerned that some nut job in the inland empire is going to get ticked off at the IRS or the SEC and fly a single engine Cessna into my office building. I am, however, a little nervous that a flight from Northern Ireland may be bombed or that an Islamist group may send a suicide bomber into a Tel Aviv shopping mall.

[Tigercat]

It comes down to organized terrorism vs unorganized terrorism. If it is unorganized terrorism, it isn't worth the effort of worrying about it as terrorism, because a lone crazy person with an agenda of terror is no different than a lone crazy person without such an agenda. You can't do much about crazy. That is why some might be reluctant to call the acts of a lone crazy man without a connection to a concrete philosophical movement terrorism. Now if an act is connected to a bigger movement or agenda, you might need to consider it in bigger picture context. So that is when you break out the big umbrella word of terrorism.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Tea Partier?

Nice

[lungs]

Has anybody looked into this guy's connection with any Moslem terrorist groups?

[cartman]

I don't remember people clamoring for the guy that flew the Cessna into the White House to be called a terrorist.

[cartman]

I'll give the guy credit, he was a pretty good pilot. The building is close to a big overhead freeway interchange, near a bunch of 100 foot tall light poles, and behind a fifteen foot retaining wall on the edge of the highway. When I drove by it on the way home and took a look, he had to thread the plane through and around a lot of stuff. He was definitely motivated.

[Dodgerchick]

Well, after finding out that the house Stack burned down was less than a mile from where we live, I grabbed my camera and took pictures. I'm saddened at what I saw.

First look as I arrived to the scene



Woman walking her dog as she gets approached by reporters



Camera crews



Firetruck in front of the house



Here you can see a bit of the back of the house (where the real damage took place)


Reporters interview a neighbor


Fireman hoses down what's left of the fire


The front


Onlooker takes a picture


Fireman on the rooftop hoses down another angle


Last look before I leave


Onlooker takes a look at the damage as the house is being hosed down


House is less than a block away from an elementary school


Media Vans


Same fireman from a different angle


Fireman hoses down the house


Back of the house is pretty much destroyed


A closer look, my heart sank when I saw this


And the last picture. After this picture I looked and I mean really looked at the house. I put my head down, said a prayer for the wife and child left behind as well as the hundreds that were affected by one person's malicious act and cried. Yeah, I cried. I noticed a police officer getting out of her car and started approaching me. When she saw me crying, she turned around and headed back to her car. I'll never understand how or why some people have so much hatred in their heart.

[Young Drachma]

FOFC News Bureau is all over this one, man.

Thanks for the pics, DC. Seriously.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

Well the creepy thing is that he burned his house which is less than half a mile from where I live and he crashed a plane less than half a mile from where I work. Sad and disturbing to know how many lives he just turned upside down. In fact reports say that his wife and daughter left the house to stay at a hotel because he was going on a tirade yesterday. They returned in the morning to see their house burned down and would soon learn of the crash. Geez.

Need to edit this. It was his wife and step-daughter. Apparently this was his second marriage. Other than that, the rest seems to still hold up.