He’s a Terrorist. Just say it. Terrorist. For F*%k sake!

Posted on by

There was a terrorist attack earlier today in Austin, TX. I can’t immediately learn about this incident though if I visit the New York Times website. This (see below) is what I would see on the “National” section of their website as of 8p.m. Central, 2/18/10. The main page of the NYTimes has no prominent reference at all. It just has a single line hyperlink under the section “more news.”

Got that? “Plane hits building.” Written as commonly as “Dog Bites Man.” Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

It wasn’t just the NYTimes though. To their credit FoxNews features the incident as the main story on their website. “Cowardly criminal,” it blares. You know, kind of like an intoxicated hit-and-run driver is a “cowardly criminal.” No terrorism here.

Ok, so I have cited the “liberal media” and I have cited the “conservative media.” Let me now turn to what I consider the last honest media outlet. My beloved NPR. Surely they will call this like it is? Nope.

You see, the very definition of terrorism has changed, right beneath our feet. A man with strong idealogical beliefs against the government of the United States tries (and succeeds) to kill himself and take as many civilians (federal workers) as he can with him. But they don’t call it terrorism. That sacrosanct term is now reserved only for non-white people with funny sounding names. Preferably Muslim.

Here are some excerpts from 53-year-old Joseph Andrew Stack’s web-based manifesto (which came to light after this morning’s events):

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.

While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in. [Link]

Belief that the U.S. government is corrupt, committing crimes against the people, and must be punished? Check. Belief that his small act will help even the score? Check. Virgins waiting for him in the afterlife? Ok no. But come on!

My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ’80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. [Link]

<

p>Doesn’t he sound like he hates America? You know, kind of like terrorists who kill not only their intended victims but try to instill fear/collective punishment in the masses as well?

<

p>I am most disappointed in the Obama Administration’s response. Here is White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs from today’s daily brief:

MR. GIBBS: All right, fire away.

Q Any more details you can tell us about the plane crash?

MR. GIBBS: No — as I said earlier, John Brennan briefed the President. We’ve gotten a number of updates on the flight from the Situation Room. The President will get regular updates as well as local and federal officials figure out what happened on the ground.

Q To follow up on my question earlier, there was some talk before we left that this might have been a case of domestic terrorism, that distinction that it might have been a domestic act of terrorism. Is there any clarity on that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I took your question to mean an incident of foreign — terrorism from — that had threatened the homeland from somebody like an al Qaeda. As I said earlier, we don’t suspect that. I am going to wait, though, for all the situation to play out through investigation before we determine what to label it. Ben, I would say this. You have — again, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are in the investigation, but obviously — well, let me just do this. Let me wait until we get a better sense of where we are on the facts.

Q Do you think the President will address it? Does it rise to that level?

MR. GIBBS: I think some of it depends on sort of where — what we learn and where this goes. [Link]

I am ok with, and admire Gibbs wanting to wait for the facts. Boy am I going to look stupid if I have my facts wrong in this blog post. If so, I will apologize. No issue there. What freakin’ bugs the shit out of me is the highlighted sentence above. Allow me to paraphrase in my own words:

“MR. GIBBS: Well, I took your question to mean an incident of foreign — terrorism from — that had threatened the homeland from somebody that was like black or brown and/or Muslim. Do plain old white guys really count Ben?”

Earlier this year the Obama Administration’s Homeland Security Department ITSELF warned that there was a high chance of DOMESTIC TERRORISM:

Key Findings
(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment.

— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups
during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry
out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic
downturn–including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability
to obtain credit–could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing
extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and
government authorities similar to those in the past.


— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning… [Link]

<

p>So here is the new reality dear readers. It is only domestic terrorism if the person is Arab, South Asian, Muslim, foreign. Only foreign-domestic terrorists. Got that? You heard it here on SM first. Carry on now. Especially you IRS workers or other federal employees.

<

p>Update: Ennis reminds me about another commonality between many foreign terrorists and Joseph Andrew Stack. Engineering is a popular profession among them. Stack was a software engineer.

<

p>Update 2: Via Ben Smith, it seems that newly elected Senator Scott Brown SYMPATHIZES with Stack. Why can’t we all similarly learn to sympathize with terrorists more often. Feel their pain?:

<

p>

121 thoughts on “He’s a Terrorist. Just say it. Terrorist. For F*%k sake!”

  1. Dunno… would you call the psycho professor who killed 3 people the other day in cold blood a “terrorist” ? She’s killed more people than this guy did. This guy has had a history of problems. If we just went by body counts without taking into account motives and subversive group affiliations, then Ted Bundy probably qualified as a “domestic terrorist” too. In my view this guy wasn’t a terrorist as he isn’t part of some larger group, just like the Alabama professor or the VA Tech shooter who all acted alone. . The recent plane “undiebomber” was definitely a terrorist as he was trained and armed by Al Qaeda or a related group.

  2. would you call the psycho professor who killed 3 people the other day in cold blood a “terrorist” ?

    No. She had no ideology that led her to kill. It isn’t about numbers. It is about motive and method. His motive was hatred of the federal government. His method was to injure and to instill fear in the masses (federal workers) not specific individuals. Your comment is just muddying the waters and using the same specious logic as that demonstrated at the Gibbs presser.

  3. His motive was hatred of the federal government.

    This guy had a long history of financial troubles that he linked to the IRS and the Federal Government. It was directly personal for him. The fact that he tried to kill his own wife and child by setting his own home on fire before flying his plane into the building tells you the state of his mind. Hardly the act of a coldly efficient terrorist as we have seen in recent years. Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczinski (sp ?) fit the description of domestic terrorists. Not this guy in my opinion. This seems more like the a grander scale of “suicide by cop”.

  4. I was wondering about the same thing, considering that it was an attack on the state. Maybe it hasn’t sunk in yet since the news broke later that it wasn’t accidental.

  5. I think it’s fair to say terrorist implies membership in a larger organized effort that holds those motives and uses those methods. Until evidence of that sort emerges, I don’t hypocrisy in this. I do take your point that it would be a more prominent news item and the question of possible terrorism would be front and center if he was muslim, but you’re veering too far in the opposite direction imo.

    There was a similar sequence of events after the Fort Hood shooting with people being careful to say they’re not ruling terrorism out but it doesn’t look that way, before the eventual consensus that the crazy headshrinker was a pissed off (and probably loony) individual, not a terrorist.

  6. How can a single man define terrorism when the UN or the OIC could not do it? (read)

    I would say what happened in Pune & Mumbai as terrorist attacks compared to this. I would consider this guy as just another American psycho. He acted alone, he was not brain washed by some mullah nor did he got funding from some militant organization, he din’t attend some training in Pak, nor did he want to kill infidels. Please don’t try to reduce the seriousness of terrorism by equating to these kind of acts. Headley was not brown but he is still a terrorist.

    Maoists/Naxals are not called terrorists although they have an ideology, they are trained, brainwashed. For the most part terrorism refers to deeds done for religious reasons (I can’t still figure out where can i fit LTTE)

  7. How can a single man define terrorism when the UN or the OIC could not do it? (read)

    I would say what happened in Pune & Mumbai as terrorist attacks compared to this. I would consider this guy as just another American psycho. He acted alone, he was not brain washed by some mullah nor did he got funding from some militant organization, he din’t attend some training in Pak, nor did he want to kill infidels. Please don’t try to reduce the seriousness of terrorism by equating to these kind of acts. Headley was not brown but he is still a terrorist.

    Maoists/Naxals are not called terrorists although they have an ideology, they are trained, brainwashed. For the most part terrorism refers to deeds done for religious reasons (I can’t still figure out where can i fit LTTE)

  8. I think it’s fair to say terrorist implies membership in a larger organized effort that holds those motives and uses those methods.

    Nope. It is most certainly NOT fair to say that. We aren’t just making up our own criteria on the spot here. There is an entire category of terrorist that doesn’t meet the definition you just made up.

  9. before the eventual consensus that the crazy headshrinker was a pissed off (and probably loony) individual, not a terrorist.

    What?!! Are you kidding? He was WIDELY described in the media as a terrorist.

  10. The fact that he tried to kill his own wife and child by setting his own home on fire before flying his plane into the building tells you the state of his mind.

    How often does the media try and understand the “state of mind” of an Arab or Muslim terrorist? Besides NPR I mean?

  11. There is no consensus on what constitutes terrorism in spite of what Wikipedia says (and even they say “acts in support of some group, movement, or ideology, but does so alone”). Organized group activity is the only kind there is broad consensus on, and it’s reasonable for newspapers to be conservative in applying the term to activities on the margin.

    Anyway, if you want to include individuals acting alone, fine. That definition is not a problem. The problem would be if it was applied selectively, which i’m not yet convinced they do. The comparison shouldn’t be with Al-Qaeda, it should be with others who’ve acted alone. Per my example of the recent Fort Hood shootings committed by a brown muslim man, I think they’re acting more or less consistently.

  12. As crazy as it sounds, I actually agree with this blog for once. It’s a shame that this guy who acted against the state would not be described as a terrorist.

  13. There is an entire category of terrorist that doesn’t meet the definition you just made up.

    From your wiki link:

    Usually, the lone-wolf terrorist shares an ideological or philosophical identification with an extremist group, but does not communicate with the group he or she identifies with. While the lone wolf’s actions are motivated to advance the group’s goal, the tactics and methods are conceived and directed solely by the lone wolf, without any outside command or direction. In many cases, as in the tactic as envisioned by Curtis, the lone wolf never even has any personal contact with a larger group.

    Except for being a software engineer, this guy seems to have no other affiliation to any larger group. The “lone wolf” as described above may act alone and of his/her own accord but never the less has a connection with a bigger conspiracy. My point exactly. This guy just acted due to his own frustrations and anger. It wasn’t as though he rehearsed his plan for months and then executed it today. He just snapped. Trying to fit him in the terrorism box doesn’t work despite the superficial similarities in actions. Some months ago another software engineer shot up women at a gym in PA because of his frustrations over women. He also wrote an angry post about it on the web before his act. This case sounds very similar to that.

  15. Except for being a software engineer, this guy seems to have no other affiliation to any larger group

    Sigh. Read the post where I excerpt straight from the Homeland Security report. His ideology is consistent with and affiliated with a huge domestic anti-government movement that has a substantial presence on the web. J

  16. His ideology is consistent with and affiliated with a huge domestic anti-government movement

    Naxals are not called as terrorists (also why was my previous comment din’t get published?)

  18. They even “linked” him to an Al Qaeda affiliated Imam.

    I thought he had exchanged email with that Imam. If they find correspondence or some direct affiliation between this guy and some anti government group then I’d classify it as terrorism. But till then I would say it is not.

  19. See, a terrorist specifically targets civilians, whereas this guy was targeting a building in which there happened to be civilians at the time. Collateral damage. That’s why he isn’t a terrorist.

    More seriously, if a bomb exploded in today’s world in front of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, 150+ people died, and the identity of the perpetrator was discovered within hours as Timothy McVeigh, would it or would it not be classified as a terrorist attack? Because it sure was then…

  20. Naxals are not called as terrorists

    This is America. Not India. When has the American media ever even discussed Naxals? I myself know nothing about the Naxals. India may use different definitions to its liking.

    Anand. Type in “Nidal Hassan Terrorist” and tell me what you find? Now type in “Nidal Hassan lone troubled individual.”

    I rest my case.

  21. His ideology is consistent with and affiliated with a huge domestic anti-government movement that has a substantial presence on the web

    If you are taking his anger at the government to be an ideology then yes. But to me ideology is more political. This guy’s anger is personal as he lost money due to what he saw was unfair tax laws directed at engineers and scientists. he quotes the exact tax code that he disliked. That doesn’t seem like a broad ideological hate of the government. More like a man who is unable to find a solution to his financial and tax problems and translates that into violent acts. The anti government crowd don’t usually quote tax laws numbers as their motives for hating the government.

  22. 150+ people died, and the identity of the perpetrator was discovered within hours as Timothy McVeigh, would it or would it not be classified as a terrorist attack? Because it sure was then…

    Is it intent or realization? If the bomb went off in front of that building today and only 1 person was injured (zero deaths) would it be terrorism or just a troubled individual. Or would it depend on his ethnicity and religion?

  23. The anti government crowd don’t usually quote tax laws numbers as their motives for hating the government.

    Ok, clearly you have never visited an anti-government site. 🙂

  25. What’s in a name:

    He didn’t try to kill his wife and kid. They had left and he burned down an empty house.

    As for the rest of it, a terrorist attacks non-combatants for political or ideological reasons. A terrorist may be acting alone or in concert with a larger organization, but I’ve never heard terrorism defined the way you’re doing so. You’re saying that one man is a lone wolf but two is terrorism?

    You’re arguing that his mission was personal not political. There’s no reason why it can’t be both — he had a beef with the US government. Even if that beef was personal (and it’s not, he has a sweeping critique of the government, it’s not just that the government has done him wrong as an individual) it’s still intrinsically political in nature because it’s about government organizations.

    Was he working with a larger organization? That’s what we don’t know. But this guy 9-11’ed a federal building. That’s terrorism.

  26. Refer to this case from 2002 where a teenager crashed a plane into a building in FL. He even had a note with him supporting Bin Laden. It wasn’t classified as terrorism. If you cherry pick the terms “plane”, “building” “crash” and especially “Bin Laden”, then this should definitely have been classified as domestic terrorism. But it wasn’t. It was classified as a suicide. Possibly related to the drug Accutane.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_plane_crash

  27. His ideology is consistent with and affiliated with a huge domestic anti-government movement

    Problem is, parts of his ideology is also consistent with the progressive movement.

    He hated Bush:

    recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies

    Spunds like a HCR supporter:

    the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple

    DIsdain for corporate profits:

    It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in

    anti-religion, singles out a christian one:

    the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. . . . the monsters of organized religion

    anti-rich:

    there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us

    supports anti-trust laws:

    pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages

    and most importantly, anti-capitalist:

    The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

  28. The vast majority of those links are questions on whether he’s a terrorist. Speculation on possible links.

    Anyway, we can cherry pick our data all day. Whats the bottom line here? What we’re talking about here is responsible reportage on the day of the attack. Not what Glen Beck says the next day. What you’re getting worked up about here in those specific articles is actually good responsible journalism. Stuff like terminology on sensitive issues is governed by pretty formal guidelines newspapers have internally. They were used today and they were used in Fort Hood. Over the next few days, the opinion press will go to work and thats where you’ll see the true bias against muslims. But even that is always couched in guilt by implication, open ended questions, shit like that. In the two pages of skimming I did on the google search you mentioned it was all wishy washy stuff of this sort. Attempts to create smoke and imply fire. The title of your post shouldn’t be “He’s a terrorist”. It should be “Is he a terrorist? Did he worship Satan? omg he went to confession WHAT DID HE SAY”

  29. What you’re getting worked up about here in those specific articles is actually good responsible journalism.

    What I am getting worked up over is you inability to follow simple facts and logic. I am done. I will engage other commenters. Thanks.

  35. this is a frequent malaise of the overthinkers, they abstract away what common sense tells them and are left with a ludicrous proposition.

    crazy guy doing what’s akin to suicide by cop is \neq domestic terrorist. Your dog knows that instinctively.

    When would the actions of a lone crazy guy amount to terrorism? Well it would have to be sustained, with organization, what the unabomber did for instance. Again all this is intuitive, only can overthinking blind one to that.

  36. >He didn’t try to kill his wife and kid. They had left and he burned down an empty house.

    Neighbors said they heard a loud explosion in the house Thursday morning right before it became engulfed in flames.

    MyFoxAustin.com reported that a 12-year-old girl and a woman were rescued by a neighbor from the $236,000 home. The station reported that the girl is believed to be Stack’s stepdaughter. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586581,00.html

    Doesn’t seem like they had left. Doesn’t seem like he was acting like a terrorist who keeps a low profile till his plan is achieved.

  37. What?!! Are you kidding? He was WIDELY described in the media as a terrorist.

    I recall the media being restrained at first. certainly the president was. chris mathews opened hardball today with: “Today, a suicide bombing in Texas” can’t argue eith that.

  38. Terrorist, rebel, tomato, tomaato.

    The sooner people realize labels like terrorist or rebel are just the marketing end of financially driven motives, the more we can spend our time doing something constructive.

    Terrorists or rebels are driven by a thought/concept/belief, to the point they will give up their own life. Be it for “good” or “bad” doesn’t matter, the majority of the time there is a purpose behind it. If this guy is labeled as a terrorist, then the next thought process is, “Well, why?”. It doesn’t take much to connect the dots from terrorist, to manifesto, to “Hey, they piss me off too”, especially at this point in our nations history. It gives strength to something that could in the end affect the safety of others in this country and someones’ pocket.

    Now, you just label this guy as crazy, sprinkle in some scandals, new movie releases and the latest political whatever. Let it bake at 350 for some time and bing! Everyone goes, “Hey, do you remember that crazy dude who flew a plane into the IRS building?”

    Labels are labels. You call someone a rebel and they are fighting the good fight, a person of the people. You can that same person a terrorist, they are an evil doer. You that person crazy, they are forgotten.

  39. Are some of you for real, if the pilot was a Muslim American there would not even be argument as to what the media would label the act

  40. This is America. Not India.

    Chill! I was trying to show that not all organized, anti government groups will be called as terrorists. Since terrorism is global, the definition should be held the same everywhere, not just in US (I remember the American new channels calling the Mumbai terrorist attackers as gunmen!).

    Naxals, Mafia – are all organized groups, which train their foot soldiers, are anti government, kill people, brainwash their followers… but they are not called as terrorists. The problem is there is no precise definition for terrorism. I would say killing people with religious motives would be highly likely to be called as Terrorism (You can add exceptions for these like LTTE, ULFA..)

  41. What’s in a name:

    The wife herself says that she was away and arrived to find her house ablaze.

    As for the rest of you, while there is debate over what is considered terrorism the definitions usually require two things: (a) attacks on civilians and (b) political intent.

    As for this particular terrorist, his attacks were definitely premeditated. He wrote a long letter, then got his plane and crashed it. This isn’t a crime of passion. This took premeditation and planning.

  43. Dudes,

    Just like “genocide”, the “terrorism” word is cautiously used. If you call him a terrorist, everyone who hates the IRS becomes a terrorist by shared ideology, and then we are a nation of terrorists by majority.

  44. This attack fits the legal definition of terrorism in the USA Patriot act:

    The USA PATRIOT Act defines terrorism activities as “activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.”

    (A) is clearly true (B) ii fits his manifesto, he’s clearly trying to change government policy (C) fits trivially

  45. Are some of you for real, if the pilot was a Muslim American there would not even be argument as to what the media would label the act

    Army Doctor Held in Ft. Hood Rampage

    General Cone said that terrorism was not being ruled out, but that preliminary evidence did not suggest that the rampage had been an act of terrorism.

    Army Tests Sole-Killer Theory as Details Emerge

    In Washington, a law enforcement official said an early search of Major Hasan’s computer did not indicate any direct exchanges with known terrorists.

    Little Evidence of Terror Plot in Base Killings

    After two days of inquiry into the mass shooting at Fort Hood, investigators have tentatively concluded that it was not part of a terrorist plot.
  46. This attack fits the legal definition of terrorism in the USA Patriot act

    So does the attacks from any Mafia or even drug traffickers. They are not likely to be booked under US patriot act.

    You also need to consider the motivation, if it is just money then they are called by different names like say mercenaries

  47. This attack fits the legal definition of terrorism in the USA Patriot act:

    There’s a big difference in the operating definition the government uses and those the media impose on themselves.

    In the first, it is in the government’s interest to have it be as broad as possible so they have greater flexibility to act on a selective basis and abuse stuff like the Patriot act to wiretap regular thugs etc.

    The media however, needs the definition to be narrower and based in broad consensus to protect their reputation and avoid litigation when not everyone agrees. There is absolutely no way a reporter can label an act as terrorism without evidence and fact checking that supports a consensus view (opinion pieces have more leeway). It isn’t even a judgment call. The reporter would be fired if they called this terrorism as a statement of fact, not opinion. They best they can do is quote other people calling it terrorism.

  48. This is where America is heading with all the insane anti-government, anti-tax rhetoric of the teabaggers, libertarians, reaganite republicans etc.

    There will be a lot more terrorists like this guy in the future.

  49. I don’t think Akash knows very much about history of the word “terrorism”… In India, Naxalite violence is considered terrorism. IRA violence in Northern Ireland was considered terrorism. LTTE is considered terrorism. All of these movements are political, not simply religious.

    I think the saying is: one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.

    I liked this blog post. It’s funny how all the major newspaper front stories have changed to Olympic men’s figure skating results (which do matter), but flying into a government building is way too big a deal to mute within the first 24 hours.

  50. Maoists/Naxals are not called terrorists although they have an ideology, they are trained, brainwashed.

    These are proscribed as terrorists in India. Although there’s substantial intellectual following for these movements here, and although India is known to exile high-level Maoists to America, I’d bet they would be labeled as “terrorist” as soon as they attacked the American state.