You are right.

It is terrorism, plain and simple.

It's practically around the corner from my house. Less than a mile. I haven't passed by yet. Whatever you call it, it's scary stuff.

It is definitely terrorism. Its definition: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Slamming an airplane against a building full of innocent people qualifies as violence to me. Whoever disagrees with that is definitely a bonehead.

I saw that super douche Rick Sanchez defending the idea that this *isn't* terrorism just a few minutes ago - I almost threw up. I wonder how Rick Sanchez would feel had Mr. Stack chosen to fly his plane into CNN headquarters. Idiot.

In order for the media to admit it was an act of terrorism they will also have to admit that they encouraged terrorism with their anti government rants over the past year. And we know that isn't going to happen.

Of course it's terrorism. Anyone who terrorizes or creates terror is a terrorist. Period.

it is as much terrorism as what Timothy McVeigh did or as what Charles Manson did. Hell even Jeffrey Dahmer could loosely be called a terrorist in that what he did instilled terror in his victims and in the general community.

Doug, like you and others here have said it definitely can be described as terrorism. The building damage looks almost as serious as the truck bomb detonated by Timothy McVeigh.

Definitely terrorism. But to call it that, Repubs would have to come out and defend their favorite punching bags--The government and the IRS.

Holy Short Form Batman, it' CAN'T really be terrorism if a white American guy does it!

Its definition: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.


Hmmm. So, by using that definition, the war in Iraq is terrorism too if you think about it. I don't think in a few days this guy will be looked at as a terrorist. I think he will be looked at as someone who actually tried ever way possible to contact congressmen, governors, and others as he said, and was totally ignored. He followed the rules to the T, for years. You can't play one side of the fence here. Patrick Henry may well have been considered a terrorist by today's standards, along with a lot of the patriots from the birth of America. At least, that is what the British thought.

Fly a plane into a building to kill innocent civilians doing their jobs. sounds like terrorism to me. I think one of the reasons the right may have difficulty calling it that is not just the fact that he was white, but that the target was the IRS, something we all dislike this time of year, but something the right really has a problem with. So they'll say he was simply a disturbed, disgruntled tax payer.

Yep. Definitely a terrorist. R

Yes, it is terrorism. I would appreciate it greatly if the media would start applying that term to white people who have earned it. Stack isn't the only one, even this year! Americans can be and are terrorists too!

Wouldn't it be great if this guy survived and had to have round the clock treatment and his nurse.......Dr. Amy Bishop!

Yep. You're right.

Well said.

Perhaps he should have written more letters to his elected officials and waited for them to a) pay attention to his requests b) do something?

How likely is that scenario, exactly?

It's a pity that only one Federal employee was sent home to Jesus. The IRS is the US version of the KGB. The 16th Amendment was never ratified. Watch the late Aaron Russo's "America: From Freedom to Fascism" which is available free on video.google.com, pay special attention to his interview of an IRS Commissioner and the IRS Commissioner's refusal to answer Mr. Russo's specific questions. The IRS is a scam of unbelievable proportions. Yet the sheeple just lay back and take it.

Had the 9/11 jet liners flown into the IRS HQ and the Federal Reserve... well, let's just leave that up to the individual imagination...

Terrorism period. I agree, this is a form of hypocrisy. I bet anything that if this were a Muslim or a Middle Easterner...we would still be hearing about it on the news and how the individual were Muslim or Middle Eastern and how its terrorism and how its being investigated to see who created this who planned this.

Our extended campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan-- are they "terrorism"? Or are we merely "spreading democracy"?

Nice graphics and a local angle. r.

ronnierayjenkins and gordon wagner: Iraq and Afghanistan are wars in which some acts that can be described--or construed as--terrorism occur. But we sent regular soldiers to those two areas with the intent to fight armies and other types of combatants. We don't intentionally target innocent civilians. The military going after military targets, in other words.

Or to put it another way, your cousin Smitty is not being shipped to Afghanistan so that he can fly a light plane into a random government building in Kabul.

The wars in Afghanistan and (especially) Iraq are difficult if not impossible to justify, but they're wars, not terrorism.

Thanks Jeff.

Good luck. The authorities refuse to call the mass murder by Major Hasan at Ft. Hood terrorism and that was blatent, in your face, "Allah Akbar" terrorism. 13 innocents dead and he is being giving physical therapy in the hospital. We're living in dangerous times.

If if smells like a fish, and walks like a duck, and crashes planes intentionally into buildings, it is terrorism.

No, it wasn't terrorism...it was the criminal act of a deranged suicidal mind. No more and no less. By labeling this act 'terrorism', you debase the language and the meaning of the word. And you also fall further down the rabbit hole of extra-legal USA PATRIOT Act government control.

Do you realize that under the PATRIOT Act, the lunch counter sit ins of the civil rights movement could be construed to be terrorism? That the WTO protests of yesteryear in Seattle could be called terrorism?

Stop debasing the language. And stop knee-jerk labeling of mere crimes as terrorism.

The dude was unbalanced. But a terrorist? No.

I think domestic terrorism is still thought of as terrorism, but you're right, it doesn't seem to elicit the same rage and vengefulness. Does it fall under the more benign title of "hate crimes?"
R

Let's review the fact here. The man was pissed off at the IRS. He wanted to change things. He flew his plane into the building where the IRS has offices.

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to intimidate people into making political change.

Was this a terrorist act? You better believe it was. The Irish Republican Army was defined as a terrorist organization, and they would warn the cops before a bomb went off so that the target could be evacuated.

This is terrorism - Post 9/11 terrorism.

You are correct.

The Ox: a pedantic argument! I am so there!

But seriously: arguing that certain acts aren't terrorism because they would allow the U.S. Government to implement their extraordinary and blatantly unConstitutional powers under the PATRIOT act doesn't fly for me. I think the PATRIOT act is a load of "unitary executive" hogwash that desperately needs to be overturned, but you can't use it to define a terrorist act--you look at the act itself.

I kinda agree, its terrorism, but then again, how do you define terrorism so that what the Military Industrial Complex does all over the world is not included....

one reason it seems incongruous to call it terrorism. hes not a lowlevel expendable member of a political organization dedicated to terrorism or terrorist attacks to [attempt to] achieve political goals. at least that we know of, so far.

Thank you. Abso, baby!!!!

Hmmm.. This kind of reminds me of the Fort Hood incident a few months ago. The media warned about the "terrorism" label, then the truth came out..We'll see what is up in the next few days.

Another thing.. Why did he hit this small IRS office instead of the main office off Ben White???? Hmmmm...

Let's not forget to condemn the IRS' terrorism too. Taxation is theft. They're the ones that initiated the violence here. I wouldn't have done what this guy did, but as the saying goes live by the sword, die by the sword.

It's not terrorism, it's a simple, single (two if you count the house), outrageous crime. There was no coercion, threats, or state of fear that led up to the incident. It was not organized beyond his simple plan. The guy was mad, had enough, and he lashed out. There was no organization behind him, no cult, no orders, no direction. He committed a heinous crime, period.

What's the big deal? Are we semantic obsessives now? Terrorism, criminal act, act of desperation, whatever. OK, you want me to call it terrorism? It's terrorism. Happy now?

Agreed. He did strike terror in the hearts and minds of all of us. Sometimes a terrorist is just a terrorist and a spade is just a spade.
R

vzn...Timothy McVeigh was a single individual. Surely you don't think that his act was not a terrorist act. Remember, by definition, an attempt to intimidate people by using violence for political goals -- no matter how badly thought out the plan is -- is terrorism.

You don't have to be tied to al Qaeda, or Operation Rescue, or the Black Panthers, or the Weather Underground to be a terrorist.

A-freeking-greed!

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist - he had a group, was supported by that group, and he wasn't the only one convicted. Stacks was not a terrorist - he was an ordinary guys that gave into the thoughts everyone else shrugs off. Terrible crime, you betcha. Terrorist, no.

Can't argue with the label, but we'll also have to understand some serious mental illness too. I'm not excusing anything he did, but he also burned his estranged wife and daughter's house down today too.

I'm not going to get into what the media or anyone else should call this, but personally I would NOT call this terrorism based on what I know now.

It's a pretty fine line and honestly I think it's kind of semantics, but to me there's a difference between someone who basically just loses it and decides to take other people out with him and someone who deliberately plans an act of violence to affect some kind of change AND who is part of a broader movement.

After all, apparently this guy set fire to his own house WITH HIS WIFE AND KID STILL IN IT. If he was trying to make some kind of point, what was the point of that?

The guy lost it and he went after something that symbolized, to him, something he hated.

If you want to call anything that causes terror "terrorism", then fine, everything is terrorism.

But personally I think that real "terrorism" is something that is done for some type of political purpose and is part of a broader movement. YMMV.

I think it is more like a mall shooting. McVeigh was a terrorist because he had a very specific ideological agenda, which this guy did not; the burning of the house, the note, it is all a self-erasure, a suicidal rampage.

I'm not sure that it should be counted as terorism either. When a postal worker goes postal, should that count as terrorism?

I think you'd want to distinguish between one person who goes crazy and tries to take a few or a bunch of others with him, and someone who does the same thing but is part of, or acts with the backing of some manner of organization with some manner of political goals.

If the suicide note turns out right and I think it will. It is terrorism and far more likely in the good ole USA by US citizens today than to US citizens by muslems or afghans and Iraqis coming to the mid US to carry our terrorist acts. They are busy fighting in their own countries.
The states have big problems and the average 'white man' feels he can do it without threat of prison or worse being tortured. This man committed suicide so he falls into the suicide bomber category of terrorist. From reading Salon all one can say is that he struck at a time where there weren't many if any deaths. Not sure this is true but I live in London and it wasn't covered.

A terrorist is someone who participates in a campaign of terrorism inflicted upon a civilian population with the objective of destabilizing either the party in power, or the community as a whole.

Someone who commits an act of violence, absent the structured organization of a terrorist organization that has the capacity to continue the terror campaign, is simply a criminal.

Terrorism takes its name from its tactic of inflicting apprehensions of mortal anxiety upon the target community. I don’t think anyone – except some bozos in the media and some equally stupid bozos in the government – expects to see Pipers and Cessnas dive bombing IRS installations around the country any time soon.

The terror that the collateral victims of a terror attack feel – meaning those who were not directly affected by the immediate action – is the fear that the attacks will be replicated.

Spend some time in Israel riding the buses of their public transit system after a terrorist has blown one up and you will have some idea of what it is like to live under the constant threat of a terrorist attack. Or, if you prefer, ride along with the GIs in Iraq, where terrorism is a fact of life.

In order for Joseph Stack to be a terrorist, he would have had to have been a member of a group of like-minded people determined to carry out repeated attacks against their targeted enemies.
No such group exists. There is no such thing as a lone terrorist.
There is no such thing as a domestic terrorist – yet. I’m sure they’re coming, but they’re not here yet.

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols don’t qualify as terrorists because they weren’t part of an organized group, but they have been described as terrorists simply because they were suffering delusions of a political nature and because they used explosives in their attack.

Interestingly, I’ve never heard Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower sniper, or any of the other gunmen who have carried out killing sprees such as the Columbine Shootings, as terrorist attacks.

There seems to be a connection between the use of explosive devices and the application of the appellation of terrorist to the perpetrators of these mass killings.

The exception to the rule, Nidal Malik Hassan, has been called a terrorist because he is a Muslim, and because he repeatedly espoused Islamist rhetoric before he carried out his attacks.

For some reason I don’t fathom, it makes many people feel better to label emotional disturbed individuals who carry out murderous attack as terrorists, in much the same manner as certain delusional Americans insist upon talking about a war on terror, as if it possible to declare or wage war on a non-territorial entity as though it were an actual nation.

Until someone else launches a similar attack, quoting Mr. Stack’s manifesto, he has to be regarded as a lone wolf, a criminal, to be sure, but not a terrorist.

If we continue to label every lunatic who commits an act of lunacy we will sooner or later drive ourselves into a psychotic state in which we view all dissenters as terrorist and, then, we will truly have arrived at George Orwell’s 1984, if we haven’t already.

Terrorism in my book, how on earth was it anything less than what the nutjobs who orchestrated 9/11 carry out? Because he left a note... Puleaaaze... This was another tea bagger ranting at the government because he could not see through the way the whole system is rigged... and with the Supreme court handing off the last vestiges to our Corporatocracy... Who else to blame but Uncle Sam.

Douglas,
I don't think the The Ox's comment was "pedantic". It didn't seem to be narrow, stodgy, nor ostentatious, as the dictionary amplifies the definition of pedantic. I didn't consider the Ox's comment to be unimaginative nor pedestrian, both synonyms for pedantic. You accuse The Ox of pedantry, then you add "Im so there". I guess that your were being facetious. Of course, I thought The Ox's comment was right on.

I am a little dense as to why it is so important to call the deranged pilot a "terrorist". (Is "deranged" middle ground enough?) In the few news reports that I have seen, the reporters do not hesitate to use the word "terrorist" -- often prefixed by the word "domestic". I have always believed that the Bush/Cheney multicolored terrorism warning system was purposefully used to frighten the public and buttress opinion on the necessity of their wars. Does anybody know the present color setting?

I will check the FOX News position on the deranged act tomorrow. If they concentrate on "terrorism", then I will know The Ox is right.

Meanwhile, I will stand with Richard W., Clark K., dawdler, Don Rich and Abrawang on this one. Clark K. puts it very neatly.

Douglas, I forgot a couple of things:

Richard W., Clark K., et al, are not "boneheads".

I can't believe that one of your viewers would say "It is a pity that only one Federal employee was sent home to Jesus."

I have viewers?

It is NOT terrorism. Take a deep breath, and consider just whom it is that supposedly is being terrorized. The US population in general? No - we are not being frightened into changing our behavior. Who, then?

Then answer? It isn't terrorism. It is a crazy who is protesting something - but unless you redefine "terrorism" completely he didn't qualify. The perpetrators of 9-11 had specific complaints - this guy - well, what didn't he dislike? Terrorism suggests that societal behavior could be changed - but since he hated both left and right, what would he have had us do? The 9-11 people didn't leave us in question (nor, in a different context, did the IRA. It just happens the latter got what they wanted)

Full terrorist status. Excellent post. xox

It is not Terrorism, however the way that the IRS collects its taxes definitely is terrorism on all small businesses. Were those who dressed as "Indians" at the Boston tea party actually terrorists?

This wasn't terrorism. We do not need more general aviation rules, the government does not need anymore tax payer's money to protect "themselves" but, you know, we sure could use some tax reform one of these days, real reform, not another year of pretend like they are doing with health care.

This problem of semantics stems from the very real problem of inability of the American people AND the government to acknowledge that Islam is a religion of conquest with the goal of conquering the entire world utilizing tactics of war through military, political and spiritual means to accojplish their aims, which has not changed since its inception. At times it is weak, and so then it pretends to be a religion of peace. At times it is strong---and it is beginning to see itself as stong today---and then its pretenses stop.

All of you having a hard time dealing with the governmental and/or media inability to call this man a terrorist, take a look at yourselves with regard to Islam and its intent? What do you actually KNOWabout its founder, its book, its history, its stated intent and goals?

You want to call this man a terroist? Fine. Let's call him a terrorist. He clearly commited an act ot terror. But let's be completely honest, and call Islam the religion of terror that it is, as well.

It's jihad. FOX news is tool of the terrorists.
Send the entire network to Guantanamo
AND NO MIRANDA!

I think this is terrorism. Terrorism means creating violence. Something which had have happened was terrorism, as it included killing of innocent people.
Ylod

I watched CNN's Rick Sanchez, pound his hand on the table yesterday and repeatedly demand from their security x-pert, "I want to know! Is this terrorism? I want to know! Is this terrorism?"

What's so meaningful about people about categorizing a criminal act as terrorism? Does it make you feel safer? Do you think the Big Papa Feds will take some sort of action to protect you? What does it matter?

The guy was angry and he had a grudge. He committed several criminal acts. Why isn't this enough for you?

The term terrorism will lose all meaning is it is ramdomly applied to every nut who commits an act of nastiness because they lack the emotional skills to deals with life even when it sucks. "Terrorism" is only meaningful if it implies an organized political agenda (bombing abortion clinics, going after the Great Satan, bombing Afghani citizens [oops]). We have another phrase for having a personal psychological meltdown (burning down your home, then killing yourself in an act of insanity) - "going postal". If we lose these distinctions, the world becomes filled with terrorists that we can all waterboard with impugnity. Language creates reality. Tread softly.

Here's one more vote for the nay side. Nobody has presented any evidence that this was an organized and calculated attempt by a radical group to influence political policy, through infliction of civilian casualties. Did this guy actually believe that he was going to change IRS policy by using a small plane to make himself a casualty?

The word "terrorism" has been used and abused enough over the past 10 years -- let's not add to the fog.

It is terrorism? I guess if your terrorized. What about the kid who takes the plastic lego gun to school? Terrorism? What about the jay-walker? Did she have a bag as she crossed the street? Gawd, what about ........

Bush-Cheny Inc. did a good job of it!

So much word. Rated.

The pundits never want to label dometic terrorism accurately even though America has endured it since the Tories. Unfortunately, I doubt that will ever change.

Be careful what you consider terrorism as the Patriot Act gives the government many unconstitutional rights that could just as easily backfire on you and your family. It won't be long before we call a 1st grader bringing a fake gun to school a terrorist.
At the very least I hope this tragedy sheds light to the American people about the nonsensical IRS. Maybe some positive changes will be made to this illegal institution.

Domestic Terrorists are NOT heroes!

A disgruntled man with a history of anger. Not terrorism...except it probably terrorized the community and his family and friends because they didn't know he was holding such intensity...

Certainly an interesting discussion going on here. I think this act falls in the domestic terrorist category. And for those saying it doesn't because he acted alone with no group backing him - he may have acted alone, but he certainly has a following now and it sounds like some of them would be willing to take drastic measures themselves. The fact that some are calling him a martyr and patriot is disturbing to me.

I feel your terror, too! And yet it was only one man who felt so frustrated with the system that he used his only available means to protest. I hope somebody in the government heard him. On the other hand, if he was well-off enough to own an airplane, ...... Oh, hell I don't know nothing. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, too, protesting the government's irrational attack on the civilian, religious "cult" in Texas. How can we be heard? Certainly not through the system, if the health care issue is any indication. With a full majority, the Democrats managed to stall it saying "It's complicated." I say It's constipated. A good laxative throughout the entire congress is called for.

I'm going to guess that you're on the right track in assuming that white people won't be defined as even potential, much less actual, terrorists. Can you imagine the problems that would result, especially in the right wing media, if we had to admit that racial profiling should include whites? They've got a whole carefully constructed case for why “regular Americans” shouldn't be slowed down at airports and only those “other people” should be checked thoroughly. If we start admitting that just anyone can have such thoughts, it's going to mess up all that finely honed rhetoric.

Sorry, but I think you misunderstand the term terrorism. A terrorist commits his act for the purpose of frightening people into doing something he wants them to do -- he frightens with bombs and then uses that fear to influence authority. That's why the word "terror" is in the word. As you point out, they can be any colour. Terrorism is surprisingly effective -- the 9/11 terrorists succeeded in frightening the USA into invading an uninvolved country and sacrificing a ridiculous amount of blood, money and international goodwill in the process.

As far as I know, Mr Stack had no political agenda, no ideology, no demands, and was not part of any movement. This makes him a mass murderer, not a terrorist. He killed innocent people for revenge, not to achieve some other goal, which makes him worse than a terrorist in my book.

I think calling him what he is, a deranged mass murderer, is neither racist, nor wimpy.

Was it an act of terrorism? Terrorism is violence, but not all violence is terrorism.

From my understanding terrorism is an politically motivated act directed towards a civilian population with the intent of disrupting the population by placing the fear of a random attack against non military targets. The idea is that since anything can be a target there is the pending terror of not knowing who, what, or when the next attack will happen. So not only does the actual act cause terror, but the anticipation of an attack causes fear and terror as well.

The act was violent, cowardice, and self centered. It could be seen as terrorism since the target was non military. But, it was not civilian either, it was not politically motivated. Maybe it just was a person who because of rage and a feeling of self importance decided to commit suicide and take others with him.

Darren Wolfe: "Let's not forget to condemn the IRS' terrorism too. Taxation is theft. They're the ones that initiated the violence here. I wouldn't have done what this guy did, but as the saying goes live by the sword, die by the sword."

Taxation is theft? IRS are terrorists? They brought this upon themselves? Are you insane?

No civilized nation in the world can exist without taxes. And as taxation goes, USA has the the lightest tax burden in the developed world (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2009-11-25-oecd25_ST_N.htm).
Stop whining about taxes and do your duty as a citizen. You enjoy the benefits of living in America, so you pay something back. That's how it works.
Or would you prefer anarchy instead? That seems to be what the teabag fools are advocating.

If terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes", as one comment quotes, this wasn't: it was political/social vengeance. No "do X" to it.
Shock and Awe, now, that fitted the definition perfectly.

The douche bag is probably regarded as a hero by most Faux News viewers.

I am sure that the Teabagger group is scouring its database and contribution list to purge his information.

Funny how anyone who criticized Boob, Chummy, and Rumsnuts was viewed as a terrorist or terrorist supporter, yet those same gullible idiots are getting away with vile lies about Obama.

U.S.A

MSM

EPIC FAIL

If I may play devil's advocate (as it were), I would question labeling this act "terrorism."

I would also not hasten to label quite a lot of what is labeled "terrorism" in the media such.

I've seen people throwing fits in a Burger King for not getting enough ketchup deemed "terrorism."

Clear as I can tell, this was definitely an attack, and one meant to inflict much damage and hurt as many of the "offending party" as possible. But I would question whether the purpose was to instill fear, as much as it was to inflict harm.

Richard Reid, shoe bomber, attempted to inflict harm, but also instill fear. The underpants bomber (I'm not looking up the correct spelling of his name) similarly was trying to invoke fear - fear that has paralyzed us as a culture.

To that end, they were successful, even if their attempts at inflicting damage failed. If you've ever had to endure the circus of our current security theater when traveling, you can attest to that.

Tim McVeigh (sp?), when he blew up the federal office building in Oklahoma City, was attacking who he viewed as the enemy. He saw himself as part of a rebellion. He was using guerrilla, terrorist tactics to strike fear into the government, as well as the people who rely on that government to keep them safe.

I'm not defending this particular guy, I'm not excusing him. In saying this guy wasn't a "terrorist," I'm saying we should be more careful on how we apply the label. Ayers didn't earn the label "terrorist" until 2008. (I could be wrong on that, though)

This guy was trying to hurt the IRS - not make them fear him. If evidence comes out that he joined a group of tax resisters, perhaps even a group that advocates taking up arms against taxation (though they needn't go so far), then I'd be persuaded to change my opinion.

WRONG...YOU HAVE TO CLASSIFY THIS AS AN ACT OF CIVIL UNREST...A PROTEST AGAINST irs and the illegal patriot act.
IF YOU READ HIS SUICIDE NOTE YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT, INSTEAD OF MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT DUE TO IGNORANCE!
THIS MAYBE THE VERY BEGINNING OF PERSONAL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND UNREST OVER MANY us governments INJUSTICES FROM CITIZENS THAT HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF OVER TAXATION WITH ABSOLUTELY NO REPRESENTATION...AGAINST A CORPORATE RAN GOVERNMENT AND LAW MAKERS THAT ONLY HAVE ONE INTEREST...THEIR OWN!

Civil unrest? Yes. Terrorism? No. At least, I don't feel terrorized, and IRS employees are going to keep doing the jobs we pay them to do, not hide in the closet because they're afraid. Stack obviously objected to paying taxes and couldn't handle stress. It's too bad, but just because he used a small plane for murder-suicide, it's not terrorism. If someone walked into an IRS office and started shooting, would we call it terrorism? I don't think so.

And I'd keep an eye on anyone who writes in all capital letters.

*sigh* so much typing only to have OS go *piff* - luckily I saved it all, and turned it into a post of my own:

Should we argue semantics? Get all hung up on the "true" meanings of words? Yes. It's why we have them.

It's why Charles Manson was a mass-murderer. Son of Sam a serial killer. Why guys who get tired of delivering the mail "go postal." We have so many words to describe things, you really need to look at why.

There are definitely double standards, which I think was the point of this post.

When the Ft. Hood shootings happened, when it became public knowledge that the shooter's last name was Hassan, immediately the media was filled with "was this an act of terrorism?" His shouting, "glory to god" (I believe the translation of Allah Akbar) didn't help matters.

Did anyone call the VA Tech shooter a terrorist? He wasn't white. I'm pretty sure he wasn't born here, either.

There have been other school shootings, since Columbine, and since 9-11 - they are sadly almost cliche. How many of them were labeled "terrorism?"

I'll also point out that when that small private plane crashed into an apartment building in Manhattan (it killed a baseball player - I'm too lazy to look up details), "terrorism" was the initial, unqualified, panicked response, as people there are still a bit edgy about planes flying into buildings. (turned out someone just fucked up)

People who protested the last presidential administration were labeled "terrorists," or at the very least terrorist sympathizers. What terror did they instill - in anyone other than elected officials?

The riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict - terrorism? Or rioting?

We have violence. We have crime. We have violent crime. We also, now, have legally defined "hate crimes." Beating up someone for being gay - terrorism? I know for a fact a lot of homosexuals who might otherwise come out to their communities don't for fear of physical assault, among other things. They live in constant fear.

All bigots are terrorists? The KKK certainly did a lot to instill fear in black communities. There are, sadly, very many white-supremacist groups. They are organized. They have a political and social agenda. They use violence and fear of more violence to convey their message. Perhaps their time has come to be labeled appropriately?

Violence directed (rightly or no) against a government office - terrorism? With what message? "We're going to resist paying more taxes!" or was it, "I'm destroying everything and I'm taking you with me!"

At risk of going off on a tangent, do I think taxes are fair? The way they're currently levied, no. The tax burden is ridiculously upside down in this country. But I do believe in taxation. We all live in a community, a society, and derive a benefit from that, and we all need to contribute to that to make it work for all of us. I like roads. I like schools. I like police and fire departments. I believe those who derive the largest benefit should contribute the largest amount. That would be the corporations that have judicial and legislative systems that create and enforce laws for their benefit.

The clerk, who wanted a secure job with a pension, checking to see if your returns were filled out properly, is not evil incarnate (typically) and does not deserve to be murdered.

If you attend an organized protest of the wars in Afghanistan, you can, under the PATRIOT act, be grabbed up off the street, held as an "enemy combatant," without bail, without advice of an attorney, subjected to "enhanced interrogation" such as water boarding, even though you're a US citizen, all without being charged with anything other than being a suspected "terrorist."

A guy flying a plane into an IRS building in a fit of destructive, violent, homicidal rage? I wouldn't be too quick to apply the term "terrorist" to him. Throwing labels around like that and some of them might bounce back and stick.

You are right.
Rated.

It is clear from reading these comments that those who don't want it to be "terrorism" are able to shape-shift the definition to uninclude whoever doesn't fit their desired profile.

If it's terrorism when a group of people attempt to create terror through violence for a political agenda, then it's terrorism when a solo person does the exact same thing. There may be no conspiracy, but the crime is the same. Are people scared some crackpot might do this to them next time? You betcha!

If it's terrorism when a sane person does it, it's also terrorism when a mentally disturbed person does it. And the stupidest argument is that "he did this, therefore he was insane and is thus not a terrorist". According to that definition, all the 9/11 hijackers would have been judged insane, too. Would they thus not have been terrorists?

American right wing terrorists work alone or in very small groups. Most of them were desperate due to their financial situation and then were pushed to the edge by incendiary right wing propaganda. They often kill their families as well as strangers or co-workers.

Crazy right wingers who kill a bunch of people because of their political agenda are terrorists.

So is Dr. Amy Bishop, angry about not being granted tenure and who brought a gun to work and shot a number of her campus co-workers - is she a terrorist also?

It was a blow against the empire.

Against a corrupt tool of a corrupt oppressive government.

This is all so fascinating. Maybe I should be controversial more often.

Then again, maybe not.

This is NOT terrorism. Terrorism is defined more as an organized group using terror tactics or fear to forward a political, social, or religious agenda.

This is the work of a lone anarchist.

Hmmm....
What's in a word ?
What IS a word ?
What IS PTSD, for example ?
Does what YOU put behind the word correspond to what I put behind it ? Is there a... WORLDWIDE definition of terrorism ? Does it correspond to the U.S. definition of terrorism ?
When is "terrorism" not terrorism ?
Pretty interesting questions...

I would wager that no commenter here has even been targeted by the IRS. If you had, you might have some slight empathy for this person pushed to the limit. I had an IRS issue that took over three years to resolve, and only the fact that I knew the regulations, that I was right, ended up 'in a draw'. True, I do not know all the details of what this unfortunate person went through -- but am reminded of the Howard Beale character in the movie "Network".

Y'all can parse the definitions all you want, but reading the partisan ideology in many comments, the name calling, and the rest, just makes me sad at what the American character has devolved to.

And I'll also wager few, if any, have read the 16th amendment, nor know how the original seven-tier tax table was 'sold' to the ordinary citizen: You'll never have to worry about it. It is to laugh.

Yes, 'soak the rich' was codified into law back in 1913. February.

And if you ever looked into the tax code definitions of 'income', 'employe', and mentions of Puerto Rico, etc., you might wonder WTF?

Stack wasn't trying to inflict terror - he was trying to inflict pain. He wanted no one to fear him. He wanted people hurt. He didn't have a political agenda, he had a homicidal one.

That the term "terrorist" has been inappropriately applied in the past does not justify inappropriately applying it again.

Some activities I've undertaken in the past decade have been labeled "terrorist" by some politicians and others in the media. My actions were politically motivated, but I made no physical, let alone violent acts against anyone.

I've been on the wrong end of an IRS assessment. It is like an ant trying to argue with an elephant.

I have close relatives who've worked for the IRS.

forgive my cut/paste:

the true meanings of words is doubly important to a poet - specific word choices are important.

Yeats said, "mere anarchy is loosed upon the world" (emphasis mine) - did he mean "just insignificant?" or "pure?" and why not just say "pure?"

There are very many words you can choose to say what you want, the words you pick say as much about you as they do what you're describing.

That said, every word has exactly two meanings - the one you give it when you say it, and the one someone else gives it when they hear it.

Was Gulianni merely misunderstood when he claimed (wrongly) there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil under Bush, but two under Obama? Did he "clearly" mean "since 9-11," (also incorrect, see Richard Reid) as many claim? Or did we very clearly understand what it was he was trying to say? I put myself in the later camp.

Is Harry Reid a racist? The way I read his exact words, I did not see it as evidence of racism. I cannot speak to his state of mind, only insofar as his choice of words. Remarking that there are racial dialects, and that someone does or does not use them, is not itself disparaging of any race.

People were very quick to label Dale Earnhardt a Hero. He didn't attempt to help anyone at his own peril. He drove very fast into a wall.

We have arguments about semantics because agreeing, as a group, on the exact meanings of words is the only way to effectively communicate.

According to the definition posted by Kathy Riordan, it is definitely "domestic terrorism," as in "activities that - (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State..."

Why is this even an issue? No doubt it's the "white guy" thing.

How long, oh Lord, how long?

I fail to see what all the fuss is about. Is the label really important? Perhaps media and politicians fail to call this act terrorism because his objective was against the IRS for personal retribution. This is akin to some deranged ex postal employee going into a USPS facility and shooting a few people. Again, an act of retribution for perceived personal injury. This is opposed to the moron who bombed the Federal building as an act against our homeland or our entire government.

Is this is an ideological act which could not only be terrorism but an act of war, or a person who snaps because someone or some entity treated them poorly?

Within these above considerations, the soldier who shot people at Ft. Hood is a terrorist, but the IRS hater is not. On the other hand, one can expand a definition of terrorism all the way to mechanics who rip us off on car repairs.

Personally, I like to see state and federal tax agencies be a little kinder and a little gentler. I was billed over $300 in state taxes and I paid it under protest and asked for an explanation as the reason they gave was unintelligible by even my astute tax preparer. After almost 6 months, I still don't have an answer. But I'm here to say I am not a pilot.

I'm afraid that "terrorism" has been used so much it has become almost meaningless. Labeling an act "terrorism" has become a knee-jerk reaction. How do labels help us? They serve only to put events into convenient pigeon holes. Once they're there, we're free to go into our preprogrammed "Oh my God, it's terrorism!" mode. And how were we so programmed? Well, a former President who says"nucular" and a former Vice President with a crooked, malevolent smile may have had something to do with it.

"The wars in Afghanistan and (especially) Iraq are difficult if not impossible to justify, but they're wars, not terrorism." -- Douglas Moran

No, they were wars that justified the terrorism that took place on 9/11( to manipulate, as one poster has said, the minds of the US public into a state of fear) that would justify the Bush administration going to war for oil. The methods of those wars were so horrendous that we have made a permanent enemy of the victims of our tax-paid wars.

This is what is the element that got to Stack. Today, we have tea-baggers bitching about it because they want no further tax burden since we in the US are short on education, infrastructure for transportation, a fair shake on the cost of housing, an honest banking system, insufficient health, but are in debt to "foreigners"
for the burdensome cost of the wars that inspired fear and willingness to have at it because of 9/11.

Then, from a different poster,fudo myoo*(with an umlaut),we get to this extremely cogent post.
"(McVeigh) was using guerrilla, terrorist tactics to strike fear into the government, as well as the people who rely on that government to keep them safe."

You got that? "The people who rely on that government to keep them safe." What does that say to you about the vile,sadistic, radical Right which was willing to take out a few thousand citizens that day(and in future, if necessary) not counting the military loses,while they stirred up a hornet's nest of equally radical warriors who have had it with their own nations' inherited or despotic leadership (sometimes even handpicked by our
"neo-conservatives").

If anyone remembers the details about the other two buildings across the street in the vicinity of the twin towers of the WTC and can recall what they were used for,before they went down with destabilized structural damage from the previous WTC collapse by direct hits, please chime in. Some say they were wired for demolition.

Thanks for the memories, everybody; but special thanks to fudo myoo(with an umlaut).

errorism means creating violence. Something which had have happened was terrorism, as it included killing of innocent people.
Torrent