I wouldn't consider the guy a terrorist. Just a disturbed man.

 

Back before Muslims got involved, 'terrorist' meant somebody who sows fear & panic and targets civilians to further a political/ideological agenda.

 

So yeah, he's definitely a terrorist.

I wouldn't consider the guy a terrorist. Just a disturbed man.

 

Would you say the old-IRA was a terrorist organization? If so, how is this any different?

I wouldn't consider the guy a terrorist. Just a disturbed man.

 

Back before Muslims got involved, 'terrorist' meant somebody who sows fear & panic and targets civilians to further a political/ideological agenda.

 

So yeah, he's definitely a terrorist.

*takes a LOOONG look at the church of scientology*

 

so... why aren't they on a terrorist watch list?

 

That said, what Krez and Deadly say is perfectly true, by the definition he's a terrorist.

The cult of Scientology is dangerous but they are not terrorists; their agenda is insidious but it does not seek to sow fear in civilian institutions.

 

They are currently being heavily scrutinised by various government agencies here in Australia and elsewhere (e.g. Germany) for their typical practices: kidnapping, forced abortions, black mail, fraud.

That is because you live in a country founded by tax evaders.

 

ROFLMAO. Coffee up nose.

I wouldn't consider the guy a terrorist. Just a disturbed man.

 

Back before Muslims got involved, 'terrorist' meant somebody who sows fear & panic and targets civilians to further a political/ideological agenda.

 

So yeah, he's definitely a terrorist.

 

So what's the difference, in your opinion, between a criminal who sows fear & panic and targets civilians by, say, murdering them serial-killer style and a "terrorist"? This incident was a single individual who was mad as hell and committed a criminal act as a huge "**** you" to the tax man. You can call a potato a tomato until hell freezes over, but you still can't make a decent marinara out of spuds.

Edited March 21, 201015 yr by Gorth
CIrcumventing language filter

So what's the difference, in your opinion, between a criminal who sows fear & panic and targets civilians by, say, murdering them serial-killer style and a "terrorist"?

 

The serial-killer might not intend to cause terror while a terrorist, by definition, wants to.

I wouldn't consider the guy a terrorist. Just a disturbed man.

 

Back before Muslims got involved, 'terrorist' meant somebody who sows fear & panic and targets civilians to further a political/ideological agenda.

 

So yeah, he's definitely a terrorist.

 

So what's the difference, in your opinion, between a criminal who sows fear & panic and targets civilians by, say, murdering them serial-killer style and a "terrorist"?

 

Intention.

Be careful, mate. I've long taken the view that terrorism is a tactic, not a strategy incorporating the political dimension in detail. It is there, obviously, because no action is without a 'political strategic' dimension, but it really isn't the the focus of terrorism. The only political point common to all terrorists is that they have chosen to emphasise violence over discourse for some reason, despite having an inferior military force to their target.

Edited March 21, 201015 yr by Walsingham

I wouldn't consider the guy a terrorist. Just a disturbed man.

 

Back before Muslims got involved, 'terrorist' meant somebody who sows fear & panic and targets civilians to further a political/ideological agenda.

 

So yeah, he's definitely a terrorist.

 

So what's the difference, in your opinion, between a criminal who sows fear & panic and targets civilians by, say, murdering them serial-killer style and a "terrorist"?

 

Intention.

 

Case closed. This guy was not a terrorist, because his intent was not to cause terror and he had no political agenda. His intent was to destroy the IRS building, because he was mad as hell that he couldn't pay his taxes.

 

I thought this had pretty well been established a month ago. Then someone comes in with the implication that because it happened in the USA, if the guy had been Muslim he would have been called a terrorist and everyone jumps on the bandwagon, nodding. Well, no. He would still be considered a depressed and angry loser who couldn't pay his taxes and was mad as hell at the IRS. As far as that goes, I have no idea what his religion was. It flat doesn't matter. It's a criminal matter. Period.

Edited March 22, 201015 yr by ~Di

I wouldn't consider the guy a terrorist. Just a disturbed man.

 

Back before Muslims got involved, 'terrorist' meant somebody who sows fear & panic and targets civilians to further a political/ideological agenda.

 

So yeah, he's definitely a terrorist.

 

So what's the difference, in your opinion, between a criminal who sows fear & panic and targets civilians by, say, murdering them serial-killer style and a "terrorist"?

 

Intention.

 

Case closed. This guy was not a terrorist, because his intent was not to cause terror and he had no political agenda. His intent was to destroy the IRS building, because he was mad as hell that he couldn't pay his taxes.

 

Case reopened. This guy's intent was to target innocents for political reasons.

 

Sorry Di, but tax is pretty political. Especially in America.

You may not have meant to present the dichotomoy, but I don't see why terrorism can't be a crime. Certainly fighting it using just law enforcement poses problems, but it's certainly criminal.

 

EDIT: It's also fair to say that a lot of terrorists are just fething nutloops.

Edited March 22, 201015 yr by Walsingham

You may not have meant to present the dichotomoy, but I don't see why terrorism can't be a crime. Certainly fighting it using just law enforcement poses problems, but it's certainly criminal.

 

EDIT: It's also fair to say that a lot of terrorists are just fething nutloops.

 

Yes and yes!

I believe he left an anti-government rant on a blog before he took off. That would make it a terrorist act.

 

If he'd up and shot the IRS guy he was dealing with because he was angry, that'd be one thing, but he targeted a government building to make a political statement with his death. Just because it is a rather weak statement and he didn't join any organized group does not mean it still isn't a terrorist act.

I agree with hurlshot. Abject failure doesn't invalidate the attempt. Otherwise I should certainly still be a virgin.

It's like the old expression "You don't have to attend meetings to be an alcoholic."