This kind of potshot isn’t allowed in this forum. Please don’t do this again.
To back up what I said earlier, paranoid schizophrenia is not a political position. I don’t know for a fact that Stack was schizophrenic, of course, but assigning the mentally ill or suicidal a specific place on the left-right political spectrum is a waste of time. And I think we can already see that due to the dueling claims that he was on the left and on the right.
I don’t think it’s as important to know what he was, but as what the various movements are going to paint him as. Already there has been a subset of Austin Truthers coming out saying that there are too many discrepancies in the official story to be just what it seems to be on face value. Quite a few responses on various blog are claiming that this should be seen as “The Shot Heard Round the World” for the Tea Party movement. It’s getting scary out there.
If there is a saving grace to all this, it may be that the more violent members of the movement get weeded out as the more thoughtful members start to see the effects of what they might claim is violent revolution.
So there’s a CNN poll asking if this act should be considered terrorism and to my shock, a majority of people don’t think it is (68% as of this writing). Huh? Why not? The guy used an act of terror to somewhat enforce his political or ideological belief. Since when do we only classify acts of terror as terrorism if it has a more widespread following? Or is it just terrorism when Middle Easterners fly a plane into a building? Not trying to be snarky, but what about this act doesn’t make you classify it as terrorism?
I don’t see it as terrorism in that he wasn’t trying to change anything, he had no agenda except to off himself in a big way.
This might make for an interesting other thread. What defines terrorism? I think, for me at least in this case, there is lacking an element of planning. You are a terrorist before you commit the act. The act doesn’t make you a terrorist. If you expand the definition of terrorist to “any act of terror to enforce an ideological belief” doesn’t that make any 7-11 robber who pulls a gun on the cashier a terrorist? He used terror; his ideological belief was “I need the money and there’s nothing wrong with me taking it from you.”
I don’t think I would call it terrorism. The guy was mentally unstable and he cracked, and had access to an airplane. It was a suicide with a big dose of “I’m taking down everyone I can with me.” It’s like shooting people from a bell tower, except he had a plane instead of a rifle.
He had no clear political goals or affiliation; he was just angry at the world and was looking to go out with a big bang.
We classify acts as terrorism if they have the intent of terrorizing. Not if they involve crashing planes.
I don’t consider this terrorism and I don’t consider the Fort Hood shootings or the UAH shootings terrorism, either. Crazy person flips out and kills people does not equal terrorism, regardless of their ethnicity or paranoid beliefs.
Well his online rant/suicide note was pretty against the IRS (and a host of other things), and he finished it by saying “nothing changes without a body count.” It seems like he did want something to change, and he felt that’s the only way it could.
Hmm yeah I kind of see the point you’re making, but there was some element of planning in what he did. He didn’t set his house on fire and then go on a plane ride not expecting to crash into the IRS building. That seems a bit more than just an impulsive decision. I also think there’s a fundamental difference between what this guy did and what a typical robber does, but I’m too tired to formulate it. 
Terrorists use violence and intimidation to achieve political and social goals. Maybe there are biases in the answers - it’s not like they get a statistically valid sample - but I think a lot of people feel that a ‘going out in a blaze of glory’ crazy rampage doesn’t qualify as an act of terrorism in the same way a planned attack does.
I know there was some plotting involved here, but it’s not at the level of organizing and planning of Oklahoma City or September 11th, for example. The guy snapped and decided to act on his anger by killing some IRS people. Fortunately it looks like he failed. I said the same about the Fort Hood shooting, unfortunately minus the failure part.
It could be construed as terrorism as he was definitely fighting against something(not that I think it is though). My wife provides training in that building from time to time.
Empathic as I may be to his plight, it is never the right thing to do. You want to blow yourself and your house up, fine. Don’t try and take anyone else with your dumb ass.
They found the other guy that was missing, dead.
So then do you also not consider suicide bombers to be terrorists? After all their act and this guy’s act are essentially the same. The only difference I can think of is that the suicide bombers are usually part of a larger group, but I personally don’t consider something to be terrorism or not just on the basis of how many people are involved.
I think it’s also important to distinguish a suicidal act by a single person from terrorism. In order for terrorism to work, and to me to be defined as terrorism, there has to be the expectation of further terror. Which in this case is now impossible. Terrorism to work would need to be a continued series of acts by a single person. Or in the case of suicidal acts, by an organization of committed individuals.
I’ll buy that. I know it’s just a semantics issue, but I guess I’m just blurring the line between an “act of terror” and “terrorism.”
That’s an important difference, though. Suicide bombers are often given training and equipment by larger groups, and I think their targets are often chosen by someone else. They might also be desperate and nuts, but they’re not acting alone. They’re usually part of an organization that has clearly defined goals.
How so? What defines terrorism is the motivation, not the act.
Not necessarily. For my money, this guy didn’t inspire terror because there is no fear of any further acts by him (obviously) or by any organization that he might belong to and who might take credit for the act. I can’t point to a source right now, but I’ve seen on various blogs around that most of the mainstream Tea Party organizations are quickly trying to dissociate themselves from him. It’s only the fringe individuals that are claiming a blow against the government and proclaiming him a hero.
I thought it was those same “fringe individuals” who made up the bulk of all terrorists, regardless of their background?
Once they organize, yes. In this case, there’s no evidence of any organizing entity behind what this guy did.
I agree that Stack is a terrorist. Longevity is surely not a requirement, as McVeigh’s “movement” pretty much ended the day he was arrested. Surely he was a terrorist. I think had this guy killed more people, he’s labeled a terrorist.
Reading this guy’s rant, it seems like he was making a crazed call to arms. Just because he was a weak terrorist, doesn’t mean he wasn’t one.
ETA: I accidentally cut a sentence and had to put it back in for my post to make even a little sense.