A letter from Larken Rose on the events transpiring yesterday in Austin.
-
See my other posts in this thread for further explanation. Don't want to just repeat or anything... But listen to the way you're speaking. This was just a guy that was pissed off with life and the government. It's not like he's Alqaeda or anything. "I'm going to continue calling this particular suicide dive-bomber a terrorist". That's precisely what I'm trying to avoid, because this was just an American man that was fed up with life, not your average terrorist from the other side of the planet. He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
josda1000 wrote:
He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
Dude he is not "our own" flesh and blood. He was a nutbag terrorist that flew a plane into a building. Get over this patriotic bullshit. He flew a goddamn plane into a building regardless of his reasons (I hate the IRS, my wife left me, my dog died, I'm just mental). You don't get much more terrorist than that. Terrorist doesn't mean that you are from the middle east and have a grudge against the US it means you terrorize people. Fly plane into building = people in building are in terror. You are a terrorist. It's quite simple.
-
Distind wrote:
What other point, beyond inflicting fear, and perhaps pain and suffering, on effectively innocent people did he have?
Why don't you read the rest of this thread and find out why he did it? It wasn't to incite fear. It was a political statement against the IRS.
Distind wrote:
You are backing a terrorist, someone who has committed an act of terrorism, he just happened to be lousy at it.
Yes, he was so lousy at it that he destroyed an IRS building and it was all over the news. (I think he made his point loud and clear.)
Distind wrote:
It does not stop being terrorism when you agree with it. That's a point I'd love to smack home to a lot of people out there.
Fair enough. Call it what you will. As I'd said before, I think he just had personal problems and couldn't live with it anymore. Again, I don't condone what he did, though I understand why he did what he did. My thing is, I want to smack some sense into some people and wake up to the fact that we are not free, as long as we have corrupt "services" such as the IRS. We just are plainly not.
josda1000 wrote:
Fair enough. Call it what you will. As I'd said before, I think he just had personal problems and couldn't live with it anymore. Again, I don't condone what he did, though I understand why he did what he did. My thing is, I want to smack some sense into some people and wake up to the fact that we are not free, as long as we have corrupt "services" such as the IRS. We just are plainly not.
That's fine and dandy, but quit acting like he was a hero or a wake up call. They guy killed people, innocent people, with a freaking airplane. You know, a bunch of people had an issue with western capitalism so they flew planes into the symbolic center of the market. This guy had an issue with the IRS, so he flew a plane into the IRS offices nearby. The difference in their actions was he didn't have a high rise target and a bunch of jet fuel to make it spectacular. Don't act like comparing apples to apples is invalid.
-
Oh brother, come on. Look, what I'm saying is that this is ONE guy. Terrorists from Alqaeda and such are a GROUP. Yes, they strike with suicide bombers, but there's a bunch more where that comes from, because that's a GROUP of bombers. Suicides such as this last incident was from ONE GUY. ONE. JUST ONE. That's it. It's over. Done. Finito. Notice that nobody's afraid he'll attack again, while people are afraid that Alqaeda will, because there are MORE! There is no more fear of this man. He's gone.
An act of terrorism is just that a single act. It doesn't matter if it is a group that still exists or an individual that dies in the act. Why are you getting hung up on a word. He didn't shoot his wife he targeted a building of total strangers who he hoped worked for the IRS, a governmental agency he had an issue with.
-
josda1000 wrote:
direct income tax is wrong, nevermind the moral reason. It's unconstitutional.
Your interpretation. I've never heard the supreme court hear any case involving income tax and it's constitutionality. How is an income tax immoral? Please explain.
josda1000 wrote:
But, that's why the sixteenth amendment was created. The problem with this is that it was never ratified properly.
How was it not?
wolfbinary wrote:
Your interpretation. I've never heard the supreme court hear any case involving income tax and it's constitutionality.
Look it up then. Treasury Decision 2313 Eisner v. Macomber Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
wolfbinary wrote:
How is an income tax immoral? Please explain.
Gladly. It's a redistribution of wealth through coercion. If you don't pay, you go to jail. Yes, that's the way with many things in government. However, if you were to pay sales taxes, you'd have to do it on the spot. With income tax, it is usually deferred and you have to do it within a certain period of time. So, if you don't pay it, you have cars, houses, land, etc seized or other extreme things such as jail time. I'd call that immoral, how about you? Violence is wrong, and the founders knew it, so they decided to implement an indirect taxation system through the states, as opposed to directly to the People.
-
Yeah, I do agree that it's overused nowadays. The Detroit flight... Was that the so-called underwear bomber? I think he was part of Al Qaeda, so that makes it pretty obvious. The Fort Hood shooter, I don't remember the details, but I think he was in contact with Al Qaeda... Not sure what his motivation was (I remember keeping CNN on my screen that day to get every detail, but it's been a while)... The problem with getting the other side of the story, most of the time, is that generally these guys don't survive their own attack. Stack was considerate enough to explain his exact motivation, so we can analyze it pretty easily.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Fort Hood shooter, I don't remember the details, but I think he was in contact with Al Qaeda... Not sure what his motivation was (I remember keeping CNN on my screen that day to get every detail, but it's been a while)...
He had been harrassed and subject to discrimination for being a muslim. He snapped, went stupidly off the deep end and ended up everything that they accused him of. Reports vary as to how close to the edge he was when the incidents happened, but either way the guy was unstable and found someone to justify his actions to him "because they hated him and were evil" so he could take the next step. What's getting to me is how a group that hates some guy for going nuts when treated poorly by the government has no issues with a guy that went nuts when treated poorly by the government. Guess being white means you aren't a terrorist.
-
josda1000 wrote:
He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
Dude he is not "our own" flesh and blood. He was a nutbag terrorist that flew a plane into a building. Get over this patriotic bullshit. He flew a goddamn plane into a building regardless of his reasons (I hate the IRS, my wife left me, my dog died, I'm just mental). You don't get much more terrorist than that. Terrorist doesn't mean that you are from the middle east and have a grudge against the US it means you terrorize people. Fly plane into building = people in building are in terror. You are a terrorist. It's quite simple.
-
An act of terrorism is just that a single act. It doesn't matter if it is a group that still exists or an individual that dies in the act. Why are you getting hung up on a word. He didn't shoot his wife he targeted a building of total strangers who he hoped worked for the IRS, a governmental agency he had an issue with.
Joe Simes wrote:
He didn't shoot his wife he targeted a building of total strangers who he hoped worked for the IRS, a governmental agency he had an issue with.
Yes. Absolutely.
Joe Simes wrote:
Why are you getting hung up on a word.
Because it'll be used, and is used, willy-nilly in this country. That's all.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Your interpretation. I've never heard the supreme court hear any case involving income tax and it's constitutionality.
Look it up then. Treasury Decision 2313 Eisner v. Macomber Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
wolfbinary wrote:
How is an income tax immoral? Please explain.
Gladly. It's a redistribution of wealth through coercion. If you don't pay, you go to jail. Yes, that's the way with many things in government. However, if you were to pay sales taxes, you'd have to do it on the spot. With income tax, it is usually deferred and you have to do it within a certain period of time. So, if you don't pay it, you have cars, houses, land, etc seized or other extreme things such as jail time. I'd call that immoral, how about you? Violence is wrong, and the founders knew it, so they decided to implement an indirect taxation system through the states, as opposed to directly to the People.
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises... but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Reread that last line yourself. Hell, I'll lay it out for you. Power to lay and collect Taxes Duties, Imposts and Excises but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." do you see your problem? Let me highlight. collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform So you are income taxes are unconstitutional and should be a flat tax... Even though at no point in time are taxes stated as being uniform. They put in each case in the first part, and left out taxes in the second. Income tax is constitutional, and it doesn't have to be uniform.
-
Yes. If things are so black and white for you, that's cool with me. I tend to see both sides of every story and I don't jump to conclusions. You stick to your beautiful CNN prefiltered media, I'll investigate for myself.
I don't watch CNN. But Terrorism is a word with a definition. You seem to be trying to make it out to be a nasty word that is only associated with Al-Qaeda or some other Anti-American sect out in the world. What I am tired of is people taking simple concepts and twisting them into complex ideas to fit an agenda. What is the issue with saying some pissed off nutbag American terrorist flew a plane into a building? I hate the IRS just as much as the next guy and the government as a whole. But that doesn't change the fact that Joe Stack was a terrorist. I was born and raised and still live in New Hampshire by the way! ;)
-
Oh brother, come on. Look, what I'm saying is that this is ONE guy. Terrorists from Alqaeda and such are a GROUP. Yes, they strike with suicide bombers, but there's a bunch more where that comes from, because that's a GROUP of bombers. Suicides such as this last incident was from ONE GUY. ONE. JUST ONE. That's it. It's over. Done. Finito. Notice that nobody's afraid he'll attack again, while people are afraid that Alqaeda will, because there are MORE! There is no more fear of this man. He's gone.
While you're going around chastising others for not reading the mans suicide note, perhaps you could be bothered to read it yourself. The man was clearly hoping to inspire others to violence. That is what changes this from a random act of violence (a la Amy Bishop) to a terrorist act.
-
Joe Simes wrote:
He didn't shoot his wife he targeted a building of total strangers who he hoped worked for the IRS, a governmental agency he had an issue with.
Yes. Absolutely.
Joe Simes wrote:
Why are you getting hung up on a word.
Because it'll be used, and is used, willy-nilly in this country. That's all.
And you still didn't concede the point. If flying a plane into a building of people you don't like is a terrorist act, he fit the bill. Considering 9/11 fit the bill, so does he. Terrorism does not need to be an organization. For all we know 1 person sent envelopes filled with white powder to people all over the US. Tell me that wasn't a terrorist act. We know the unibomber was 1 guy, was he a terrorist? They put a classified a US citizen as a terrorist for trying to light his shoe on fire with explosives inside. He was obviously not part of an organization since anyone with a clue would have told him it would not work. The US is ignoring the number of abortion doctors currently living in fear because of nutjob right wingers that think they are allowed by God to kill abortion doctors. They get fires, and a few have been killed. Are these folks terrorists? Mad at a group that stormed a religious fanatics compound so you load a truck full of fertilizer and take out a govenment building in a completely different state? Terrorist? A guy flies a plane into a building hoping to kill a bunch of government employees. Terrorist? So exactly what does a person have to do to qualify for the term? Not do it for a reason you agree with?
-
Joe Simes wrote:
He didn't shoot his wife he targeted a building of total strangers who he hoped worked for the IRS, a governmental agency he had an issue with.
Yes. Absolutely.
Joe Simes wrote:
Why are you getting hung up on a word.
Because it'll be used, and is used, willy-nilly in this country. That's all.
josda1000 wrote:
Because it'll be used, and is used, willy-nilly in this country. That's all.
The word murderer is used by the like of PETA to refer to chicken farmers. That's ridiculous as well, but it doesn't mean that when someone randomly guns down another person in the street we shouldn't call him exactly what he is.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Fort Hood shooter, I don't remember the details, but I think he was in contact with Al Qaeda... Not sure what his motivation was (I remember keeping CNN on my screen that day to get every detail, but it's been a while)...
He had been harrassed and subject to discrimination for being a muslim. He snapped, went stupidly off the deep end and ended up everything that they accused him of. Reports vary as to how close to the edge he was when the incidents happened, but either way the guy was unstable and found someone to justify his actions to him "because they hated him and were evil" so he could take the next step. What's getting to me is how a group that hates some guy for going nuts when treated poorly by the government has no issues with a guy that went nuts when treated poorly by the government. Guess being white means you aren't a terrorist.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Guess being white means you aren't a terrorist.
Welcome to the 21st century. Say you blow up a building... If you're muslim, you're a terrorist If you're white, you're a disenfranchised employee If you're black, you're a gangster If you're rich, you're accident-prone If you're a politician-- Wait, you didn't do it. That muslim guy over there did it Disclaimer: This post is intended merely as humorous satire... And I take no responsibility if parts of it happen to coincide with reality.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises... but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Reread that last line yourself. Hell, I'll lay it out for you. Power to lay and collect Taxes Duties, Imposts and Excises but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." do you see your problem? Let me highlight. collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform So you are income taxes are unconstitutional and should be a flat tax... Even though at no point in time are taxes stated as being uniform. They put in each case in the first part, and left out taxes in the second. Income tax is constitutional, and it doesn't have to be uniform.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Guess being white means you aren't a terrorist.
Welcome to the 21st century. Say you blow up a building... If you're muslim, you're a terrorist If you're white, you're a disenfranchised employee If you're black, you're a gangster If you're rich, you're accident-prone If you're a politician-- Wait, you didn't do it. That muslim guy over there did it Disclaimer: This post is intended merely as humorous satire... And I take no responsibility if parts of it happen to coincide with reality.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)If you are hispanic, you are are a damn illegal terrorist that took jobs away from honest hard working Americans that didn't want to do those jobs anyway, but dammit, they took them.
-
While you're going around chastising others for not reading the mans suicide note, perhaps you could be bothered to read it yourself. The man was clearly hoping to inspire others to violence. That is what changes this from a random act of violence (a la Amy Bishop) to a terrorist act.
No he wasn't inciting people to violence. He wanted people to wake up and take their lives back. He was extreme with his measure, however he was just trying to make a statement. He wanted people to become aware of the system, not to incite to violence.
-
So they used a redundant statement? Or they were just stupid? Or they meant that if you collected $5 from Bill for making $100 that year you also had to collect $5 from Jack for making the same amount? Which is how it is supposed to happen unless you have a crap ton of money, so you can shelter everything. (Blame Reagan)
-
No he wasn't inciting people to violence. He wanted people to wake up and take their lives back. He was extreme with his measure, however he was just trying to make a statement. He wanted people to become aware of the system, not to incite to violence.
You make people aware of the system with protests, demonstrations, or advertsising of some sort. Heck, you have a show. YOU KNOW THIS. You don't make people aware of the system by KILLING PEOPLE RANDOMLY
-
And you still didn't concede the point. If flying a plane into a building of people you don't like is a terrorist act, he fit the bill. Considering 9/11 fit the bill, so does he. Terrorism does not need to be an organization. For all we know 1 person sent envelopes filled with white powder to people all over the US. Tell me that wasn't a terrorist act. We know the unibomber was 1 guy, was he a terrorist? They put a classified a US citizen as a terrorist for trying to light his shoe on fire with explosives inside. He was obviously not part of an organization since anyone with a clue would have told him it would not work. The US is ignoring the number of abortion doctors currently living in fear because of nutjob right wingers that think they are allowed by God to kill abortion doctors. They get fires, and a few have been killed. Are these folks terrorists? Mad at a group that stormed a religious fanatics compound so you load a truck full of fertilizer and take out a govenment building in a completely different state? Terrorist? A guy flies a plane into a building hoping to kill a bunch of government employees. Terrorist? So exactly what does a person have to do to qualify for the term? Not do it for a reason you agree with?
No, I do not concede the point. Maybe I am wrong, but I still believe that it is not terrorism. Because yes, it does instill fear into those involved, however, it will not last, and it was just ONE person, ONE time. In order for it to be terrorism, he has to instill fear. 9/11 lasted a while, and arguably goes on to this day. But that's it! Just once! The guy is gone! If a guy bombs a bank, is that terrorism? Does it instill fear? Yes. But it's over with in a matter of hours, though the damage lasts a while. The game's over! It's a crime, and it's one incident, it's over!
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok, so I missed option three, "Revolt." But that option applies to groups, not individuals.
I'm glad you see what I've been trying to say. Terrorism has more to do with groups, not individuals. You must have a lot of small attacks about one specific point to really have a revolution or any terrorism at all. One guy doing one attack is not terrorism, it's an incident.
No, terrorism can apply to an individual. When it happens once, it's a "terrorist act." I said a revolt only applies to groups, because let's face it... One person can't overthrow the government. One person can TRY to revolt, but it's pointless and ineffective. One person can commit a terrorist act, though. An act such as, let's say... Sending a politician a mail bomb, gunning down a bunch of people, blowing up a building, setting fire to an abortion clinic... These are all terrorist acts if they fit the criteria of having political, ideological, or religious motivation. This guy flew a plane into a building because of his political and ideological opposition to the IRS. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I understand what you're trying to do here, avoiding the "terrorist" label for fear of it becoming too common and misused... But in this specific situation, it DOES apply.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)