Man blows up his house and flies aeroplane into tax office
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatister ... rism_6.htm
Let's look at the Stack case: (Note: These won't be strict syllogisms. The conclusion of each successive syllogism will assume the permises of past syllogisms in the sequence.)
1) Josepth Stack unlawfully flew a plane into a building.
2) This act using violence or force.
Therefore, Josepth Stack unlawfully used force and violence.
1) the building is property.
2) The building obviously had occupants and Josepth Stacks was no idiot - he knew IRS workers inhabit IRS buildings.
Therefore, Josepth Stack unlawfully used violence or force against property (The IRS building) and people (any IRS workers in the building).
1) Josepth Stack was trying to intimidate the IRS.
2) Josepth Stack hoped to further anti-income tax objectives.
Therefore, Josepth Stack unlawfully used violence or force against property and people to intimidate a government (agency) and further a political objective.
If you think the IRS is in any way intimidated by this silly suicide you are wackier than Stack. I sincerely doubt Stack felt he could influence IRS policy and his fury obviously drove him out of his mind. It was an act of insanity, not terrorism.
"I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.'" - Joseph Stack
How the hell is this not an attempt to intimidate the IRS?
Sandian reasoning applied to 9/11: "If you think the DOD would soften its support for the Israeli hawks because of multiple kamikaze attacks in the US, you're crazier than Al-Qaeda! 9/11 wasn't a "terrorist" attack, by any stretch then!"
By the way, Sand, you've yet to provide evidence that Stack was insane. I look forward to it.
And since the Underwear bomber didn't kill millions and had a very unsophisticated and ill defined idea of how he was going to effect government policy by his acts, does that mean he wasn't a terrorist?
I take it then that you regard a man destroying his property and committing suicide by crashing his plane into a building is clear evidence of a logical and rational personality.
Nobody has a "logical and rational personality", except for the patient "Elliot" (the Antonio Damasio patient).
Sand, are you seriously postulating that terrorism can only be committed by logical, rational people who are correct in their belief that their tactics will be successful in effecting the change they desire?
That has got to be the most idiotic stance on terrorism I have ever encountered, and given the number of far-right loons I know, that's saying something.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
That has got to be the most idiotic stance on terrorism I have ever encountered, and given the number of far-right loons I know, that's saying something.
The aims of terrorism grow out of a definite agenda which may be extreme but are not illogical. The actual commission of terrorism may be carried out by people who are around the bend and lost all good sense as to the personal worth of themselves and the random victims of their acts. An agenda to reverse the policy of the IRS through an act of violence has no rational basis whatsoever and is clearly insane and I cannot view it as anything but an act of personal insanity and not, as in true terrorism, an action to carry forth an agenda through violence.
To elaborate on that a bit more, an act of terrorism is by definition an act to inspire terror. When created as an act from an organization devoted to an agenda an act of terror merely indicates the possibility of future acts of the same type in order to inspire terror. Stack, being dead from his idiocy, had no power to terrorize out of any future acts. He could inspire horror from his unique action but terror is out of the question. It simply was not an act of terror.
Really now, you launch an unfounded accusation and when called on it your "proof" is a link to a nonexistent thread where you claim I posted something "in line with militia rhetoric and thinking"? 2 years and 1300 posts and that's the most damning thing you could come up with? A thread where I discussed a clever yet unethical idea that was unrelated to militias, the vast majority of which would have nothing to do with my atheist, pro gay pro abortion ass....
Better keep digging.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
killing yourself can send out a message to the media but it doesn't help the person killing themselves or their friends/family/dependents. it only hurts them immensely.
I believe a system where people are robbed or sent to prison over any sort of bills is indeed very primitive and almost medieval in morals. Send someone to prison for violence, murder, rape, and terrorism.... but robbing people of their entire life's savings and their homes or putting people in prison over bills? This sounds completely disgusting. Where is the logic in those NT's?
So this person reportedly blew up his house before flying into a federal building in Austin. He left a suicide note on the internet blaming the tax man.
A heroic sacrifice. If enough people did it, either taxes or airplanes would be abolished.
I find the notion of Jihad against the tax collectors to be somewhat amusing.
ruveyn
A heroic sacrifice. If enough people did it, either taxes or airplanes would be abolished.
airplanes are a lot more likely to be abolished than taxes lol
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Harris campaign office damaged by gunfire in Arizona |
24 Sep 2024, 11:14 pm |
Would you move to a farm house? |
24 Aug 2024, 2:44 pm |
Got invited to a man from Day Program's house...should I go? |
07 Sep 2024, 9:40 am |
Would you live in a house where a murderer once lived? |
01 Sep 2024, 8:44 pm |