Man flys plane into irs buiding

[SlingeroGuitaro]

Originally Posted by hnibos

did you actually see the plane crash into the building?

No but I was stuck in traffic right next to the building while it was on fire before the emergency crews arrived

[hnibos]

oh, that would have been gnarly

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

read his manifesto, he's crazy and wrong, but not exactly a rightwinger. people from both sides can cherry pick the manifesto for partisan fighting, but there are probably more interesting points to be made. such as how the country is reacting to this compared to how it reacted to the underwear bomber, despite the fact that both events are, by definition, terrorist acts.

Considering one guy was traipsing around the Middle East talking to still unknown people who very likely trained him (such as it was) and set him on the course to try and blow up that plane, and the other guy was just some lone nut who got mad when he got caught cheating on his taxes...well, I don't see anything interesting about the disparity in reaction at all.

[ATS]

ignore him corganist it's just his left-wing troll bullsh1t as usual

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Considering one guy was traipsing around the Middle East talking to still unknown people who very likely trained him (such as it was) and set him on the course to try and blow up that plane, and the other guy was just some lone nut who got mad when he got caught cheating on his taxes...well, I don't see anything interesting about the disparity in reaction at all.

yeah, isolated domestic terrorism doesn't pose any threat to us

[redbreegull]

lol oh wait

http://olbroad.files.wordpress.com/2...-bombing-4.jpg

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

yeah, isolated domestic terrorism doesn't pose any threat to us

I didn't say that. But the key word is isolated. I think we can be reasonably sure based on what we know right now that this Stack character was probably not part of some larger plot. He wasn't some foot soldier sent out on a suicide mission. There's no reason to suspect that the true masterminds of his plan are still around. That's not the case with the underwear bomber. This guy who flew the plane into the building won't be causing us any more problems. The people who trained the underwear bomber probably will.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Considering one guy was traipsing around the Middle East talking to still unknown people who very likely trained him (such as it was) and set him on the course to try and blow up that plane, and the other guy was just some lone nut who got mad when he got caught cheating on his taxes...well, I don't see anything interesting about the disparity in reaction at all.

Let's step back and think about the odds of dying from a nutjob flying his private airplane into your building compared to the odds of dying from a tiny group of extremist muslim nutjobs making plans in a basement in a 3rd world country and carrying it out competently.

I'd argue that there is no practical difference for you or me. Furthermore, there is no cost-effective and sure-fire method of preventing either case. Let's pretend that Iraq and Afghanistan are giant successes, blossoming democracies (hah). Is the threat of muslim extremism dimished at all? Was it worth the money and lives spent?

Both Joe Stack and Osama Bin Laden had the same goal: to strike a nerve. to scare the public into a panicked overreaction. It plays right into the hands of muslim extremists to hype their threat, raising their profile, into something more than a stupid terrorist act. Calling it a "holy war" or anything more than a criminal matter is a PR coup for them. Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such (i.e., prosecuted in civilian court and rot and jail), not magical holy warriors that our mere justice system and everything we stand for somehow isn't good enough to handle.

"These people are small and we -- and our traditions and values -- are big. They lose when we remember that, and they win when we forget it. Yesterday, they lost. An act of terrorism was committed, but we were not terrorized." - Klein

[slunken]

I don't think Joe Stack was trying to strike a nerve or scare the public; he was just frustrated and at the end of his rope.

[redbreegull]

I don't really think it makes a difference whether this guy was working by himself instead of in a terrorist network. If other people share his sentiments, we are in just as much danger from them as we are from any NGO. An organization like Al-Qaeda is extremely decentralized anyway and aside from bringing together lots of likeminded crazies and perpetuating and directing their lunacy, it isn't necessarily more dangerous to us than one guy acting alone (and serving as inspiration to others). Full on terrorist organizations with highly trained jihadists will often try over and over and over before they succeed, but one crazy fucker in Texas only needs to try once.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by slunken

I don't think Joe Stack was trying to strike a nerve or scare the public; he was just frustrated and at the end of his rope.

in that case this wouldn't even be terrorism

[ordinary apathy]

Originally Posted by SlingeroGuitaro

my pity for anything this guy did, or felt stops with the fact that he OWNED a plane


I was on 183 just south of it about 5 mintues before this happened headed north. it was awesome to see

I wouldn't be surprised to find out he was living way outside his means and owned a plane or a house he couldn't really afford, but yeah, a far cry from the old lady eating catfood that he rambled about...

I was surprised that I could see the smoke while headed on 35 South from Round Rock.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Let's step back and think about the odds of dying from a nutjob flying his private airplane into your building compared to the odds of dying from a tiny group of extremist muslim nutjobs making plans in a basement in a 3rd world country and carrying it out competently.

I'd argue that there is no practical difference for you or me.

I agree it's long odds either way, but that doesn't mean they're equal odds or that we should somehow have the same amount of reaction to them.

Furthermore, there is no cost-effective and sure-fire method of preventing either case. Let's pretend that Iraq and Afghanistan are giant successes, blossoming democracies (hah). Is the threat of muslim extremism dimished at all? Was it worth the money and lives spent?

I disagree here. Questions about the effect of spreading democracy on terrorism aside, I think it's fairly elementary that Muslim extremist terrorism, as we know it now, is eminently more preventable than the lone nut just snapping one day and wigging out. We know that the things Muslim terrorists do are being planned ahead well in advance. We know multiple people are involved in their plots and often who and where they are. That means it is much easier to find out about said plots and dismantle them. Not so with the lone nuts.

Sure, cost effectiveness is a concern either way. But as far as overall effectiveness goes, I'd say disrupting overseas plots is a lot more viable than trying to read the minds of lone disturbed white guys.

Both Joe Stack and Osama Bin Laden had the same goal: to strike a nerve. to scare the public into a panicked overreaction. It plays right into the hands of muslim extremists to hype their threat, raising their profile, into something more than a stupid terrorist act. Calling it a "holy war" or anything more than a criminal matter is a PR coup for them. Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such (i.e., prosecuted in civilian court and rot and jail), not magical holy warriors that our mere justice system and everything we stand for somehow isn't good enough to handle.

"These people are small and we -- and our traditions and values -- are big. They lose when we remember that, and they win when we forget it. Yesterday, they lost. An act of terrorism was committed, but we were not terrorized." - Klein

I think you give Joe Stack way too much credit. And our justice system as well. Great as it may be, it doesn't really scare anybody outside of our borders, which is where it needs to have an effect. It's not any admission of being terrorized to want to deal with foreign terrorism while recognizing that our justice system can only reach so far. Unless we're going to be content with show trials for the low-man-on-the-totem pole foot soldiers who get sent over here, something more is needed. That doesn't mean we have to fall all over ourselves in fear and give foreign terrorists some vaunted status, but we can't hold back and treat them like common domestic criminals just because we don't want to pump up their ego.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I don't really think it makes a difference whether this guy was working by himself instead of in a terrorist network. If other people share his sentiments, we are in just as much danger from them as we are from any NGO. An organization like Al-Qaeda is extremely decentralized anyway and aside from bringing together lots of likeminded crazies and perpetuating and directing their lunacy, it isn't necessarily more dangerous to us than one guy acting alone (and serving as inspiration to others). Full on terrorist organizations with highly trained jihadists will often try over and over and over before they succeed, but one guy crazy fucker in Texas only needs to try once.

Except that we already know that other people share the underwear bomber's sentiments and are willing to focus that into violence. There's really not any reason to assume that anyone shares Stack's specific views or that they would similarly resort to violence to further them if they did.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by slunken

I don't think Joe Stack was trying to strike a nerve or scare the public; he was just frustrated and at the end of his rope.

Joe Stack's own words disagree with you:

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed
and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take
nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that
stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction
that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and
begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for
what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe
it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the /only/
answer.

[slunken]

OH well there you go. Shrugs shoulders.

But he wouldn't have flown the plane into the building had he not been personally screwed over. It's not like this happened to a buddy of his or he read about it and he was so politically outraged he decided to do this as protest.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I disagree here. Questions about the effect of spreading democracy on terrorism aside, I think it's fairly elementary that Muslim extremist terrorism, as we know it now, is eminently more preventable than the lone nut just snapping one day and wigging out. We know that the things Muslim terrorists do are being planned ahead well in advance. We know multiple people are involved in their plots and often who and where they are. That means it is much easier to find out about said plots and dismantle them. Not so with the lone nuts.

Sure, cost effectiveness is a concern either way. But as far as overall effectiveness goes, I'd say disrupting overseas plots is a lot more viable than trying to read the minds of lone disturbed white guys.

I don't thing we are in disagreement here. The actual disagreement (i.e., spreading democracy, nation building) you tossed aside immediately. Hunting down known terrorist cells, disrupting overseas plots, is a perfectly rational response. Trying to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into beacons of democracy is a counterproductive overreaction that no doubt Bin Laden was exactly hoping for.

Originally Posted by Corganist

I think you give Joe Stack way too much credit. And our justice system as well. Great as it may be, it doesn't really scare anybody outside of our borders, which is where it needs to have an effect. It's not any admission of being terrorized to want to deal with foreign terrorism while recognizing that our justice system can only reach so far. Unless we're going to be content with show trials for the low-man-on-the-totem pole foot soldiers who get sent over here, something more is needed. That doesn't mean we have to fall all over ourselves in fear and give foreign terrorists some vaunted status, but we can't hold back and treat them like common domestic criminals just because we don't want to pump up their ego.

hold back? what exactly are we holding back by treating terrorists as criminals?

Since 9/11, the civilian federal court system has convicted 150 terrorism suspects.

How many convictions did the military commissions convict?...three.

The shoe bomber was tried and convicted in civilian court. What's the difference between the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber?

[slunken]

Originally Posted by Debaser

What's the difference between the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber?

I see this as being a possible setup to a really good joke.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by slunken

OH well there you go. Shrugs shoulders.

But he wouldn't have flown the plane into the building had he not been personally screwed over. It's not like this happened to a buddy of his or he read about it and he was so politically outraged he decided to do this as protest.

protest, notwithstanding, it was an act of terrorism. my issue really isn't the motives of joe stack and bin laden, it's how we as a country should respond to terrorist attacks.

When a white guy flies a plane into a building, the country calmly shakes its head solemnly, picks up the pieces and moves on. Hopefully a little bit more vigilant. Because really, what the fuck can we do about a lone nutjob?


But when a brown guy lights his nuts on fire on an airplane, half the country is 'HOLY FUCK WE NEED TO BOMB OMAN AND QUICK TORTURE THIS DUDE, DON'T YOU DARE READ HIM HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS, SHRED ALL OUR VALUES OF JUSTICE AND COMMON RIGHTS WE NEED REVENGE ARRRGH"

but are both events really that different to deserve such drastically different reactions?

[sppunk]

This wackjob was not trying to strike fear into Americans - that is the primary goal of Islamic-backed terrorists.

This guy was taking anger out on a building; a 'traditional' terrorist is attempting to completely disrupt a nation and strike fear in all citizens.

They both are terrorist, but have completely different motives.

This guy acted completely alone, not witin a massive cell trying daily to attack some target. That is to me the reasoning for the different reactions.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Except that we already know that other people share the underwear bomber's sentiments and are willing to focus that into violence. There's really not any reason to assume that anyone shares Stack's specific views or that they would similarly resort to violence to further them if they did.

Really? I would think the FBI is probably investigating tens of thousands of crazy guys like this at any given time. Sure, the vast majority of these people will never do anything, but I think it is a little bit of a leap to say that we have no reason to assume that anyone else shares Stack's views... obviously there are many, many people in the United States who feel the way he does. I believe there are over 100,000 people currently in anti-government right wing militias, in all fifty states.

So why exactly do we have no reason to assume that more than one person in a nation of 300,000,000 would perpetrate violence against the government for the same reason Stack did?

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by sppunk

This wackjob was not trying to strike fear into Americans -

This guy was taking anger out on a building; a 'traditional' terrorist is attempting to completely disrupt a nation and strike fear in all citizens.

They both are terrorist, but have completely different motives.

How can you be a terrorist if you are not actually seeking to make people afraid? If this guy really didn't want to terrorize people, he can't technically even be a terrorist.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by sppunk

This guy acted completely alone, not witin a massive cell trying daily to attack some target. That is to me the reasoning for the different reactions.

i wonder how many nutjobs with the potential to fly a plane into a build, or go shoot up his workplace, or shoot up a mall are out there compared to how many muslim nutjobs overseas.

semantics.

i can agree with your reasoning for the different reactions. But that doesn't mean that the reaction to muslim terrorism is smart.

[Floppy Nono]

lol @ you guys trying to define terrorism

[sppunk]

Originally Posted by Debaser

i wonder how many nutjobs with the potential to fly a plane into a build, or go shoot up his workplace, or shoot up a mall are out there compared to how many muslim nutjobs overseas.

semantics.

i can agree with your reasoning for the different reactions. But that doesn't mean that the reaction to muslim terrorism is smart.

No the reaction isn't smart, but it is natural and can be understood. Doesn't mean it is right - and it most definitely doesn't make America safer.

Then again the TSA is the biggest smokescreen in US history so maybe the overreaction does help ... (kidding, sort of).

[Debaser]

agreed, sppunk.

floppy,
to be fair, the definition of terrorism is not settled.
Definition of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but that's not really my issue here.

[redbreegull]

It is true that there is no universally agreed upon definition of terrorism. But I think you would be hard pressed to find a definition of terrorism which is not centered on actions meant to inflict terror.

[Luke's Wall]

This man left behind the burning rubble of his old life and flew high and straight into an IRS building. You can talk all the shit you want but how many of you will ever realize your dreams?

Thats what I thought.

[Floppy Nono]

Originally Posted by Debaser

agreed, sppunk.

floppy,
to be fair, the definition of terrorism is not settled.
Definition of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but that's not really my issue here.

i agree and did not mean my post directly at you or anything. just where it was placed.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Luke's Wall

This man left behind the burning rubble of his old life and flew high and straight into an IRS building. You can talk all the shit you want but how many of you will ever realize your dreams?

Thats what I thought.

he was a tax dodging loser who decided to quit life when it got too tough. oh and also decided to take out innocent people with him.