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]
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?
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]
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.
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.
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?:




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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
What?!! Are you kidding? He was WIDELY described in the media as a terrorist.
How often does the media try and understand the "state of mind" of an Arab or Muslim terrorist? Besides NPR I mean?
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.
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.
From your wiki link:
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.
As I already stated, your example is false. They described the Fort Hood shooter as a terrorist in the media. They even "linked" him to an Al Qaeda affiliated Imam.
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
If I may select my own articles, why don't we use the FOX and the NYT lead articles (I trust you're ok with them) instead of some 100 word snippet of speculation 3 days after.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/us/06forthood.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.html
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
Ok, clearly you have never visited an anti-government site. :)
Thank you for posting this!
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.
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
Problem is, parts of his ideology is also consistent with the progressive movement.
He hated Bush:
Spunds like a HCR supporter:
DIsdain for corporate profits:
anti-religion, singles out a christian one:
anti-rich:
supports anti-trust laws:
and most importantly, anti-capitalist:
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"
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.
Everyone who can't understand me, raise your hand plz.
Nice Manju. You took a page straight out of the GOPs playbook
That is what we (I) count on you for :)
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.
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.
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.
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
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..)
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.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33154.html
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.
This attack fits the legal definition of terrorism in the USA Patriot act:
(A) is clearly true
(B) ii fits his manifesto, he's clearly trying to change government policy
(C) fits trivially
Army Doctor Held in Ft. Hood Rampage
Army Tests Sole-Killer Theory as Details Emerge
Little Evidence of Terror Plot in Base Killings
You also need to consider the motivation, if it is just money then they are called by different names like say mercenaries
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree that it's hard to call this terrorism. This has way more in common with the biology professor's or the VT student's shooting rampages than 9/11, mode of attack notwithstanding. This was a guy working alone, with a very specific personal frustration against his target -- it just so happened that the target was a government building and not a university.
(Incidentally, speaking of terrorism, Pune should have been mentioned on this blog. The posts around the same time talk about Valentine's Day and MNIK, and I think anyone would agree that the bomb blast was _at least_ as important, heart-rending, shocking, and urgent as desi Hallmark and weepy SRK. But whatevs.)
well then take a look at what a left-winger says:
But much to my surprise, the manifesto is 96% left-wing.
No it does not. Unlike them this guy was motivated by an anti-government, anti-tax ideology and had associated for many years with like minded people. If this is not a clear cut case of domestic anti-govt terrorism then the word is being applied prejudicially.
A congressman tells it like it is:
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/02/congressman-lloyd-doggett-aust.html
U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, said that one of his first thoughts about the apparently intentional plane crash earlier today in Austin was being "concerned that this is where fanaticism can lead." "Like the larger-scale tragedy in Oklahoma City, this was a cowardly act of domestic terrorism," he said through his office. "Stack's [the pilot] apparent website message reflects the steadily increasing flow of 'the government is out to get me' paranoia. That so many have already contributed to a Facebook page as 'fans' of this terrorist attack on public servants is a truly appalling expression of extremism
who did he assocate with? Source?
I think everyone should read the note he left.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html
and watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLV7jydPJ8
The level of denial here in terms of how much empathy is extended to this person vs. other people who run planes into buildings and the like is remarkable. I think there are differences between what he did and, say, al qaeda, but then there are differences among all kinds of people who engage in violent acts to send messages in the same way that there are differences among the methods of the people who believe in those messages.
Let's just say that if he had a different ideology and background, the leaders of the Tea party movement and many others would currently be being investigated. They might be anyway, but it's always easier to do so with foreigners and perceived foreigners and those of us who have one foot in the door and one foot being pushed out.
I'm with you on this...but fyi, the story was on the main page of the NYT this morning when I woke up.
>> but it's always easier to do so with foreigners and perceived foreigners and those of us who have one foot in the door and one foot being pushed out.
And this surprises you?
Good post Abhi. Maybe only white people get the mental illness pass? (I often want to analyze last twenty years of coverage of the role of post-partum depression in child abuse cases . . .)
Good Post. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. Look at these definitions:
The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines "terrorism" to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100219/ts_csm/281394
Shall they start profiling angry white men? Isn't racial profiling the solution to terrorism? "Doocy: ‘All The People Who Tried To Blow Airliners Out Of The Sky Pretty Much Look Alike’ " (on Think progress)
Oh wait the GOP makes an exception: Scott Brown Yawns At Plane Attack On IRS Building: ‘No One Likes Paying Taxes’ http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/18/scott-brown-terrorism-yawn/
@suede
No, it doesn't surprise me. It surprises me a little how many people here are defending that double standard.
@manju
I agree, his ideology is something like populist left libertarian, at least based on the excerpts in the post. And that's exactly the point - terrorism is a METHOD, not an ideology, designed to evoke a feeling, often among non combatants. That has been the point for many of us all along.
That is why when the 'War on Terror' was annoucned many of us were literally confused, given that 'Terror' is not a geographic location, a government, or even a non-state actor. Terrorism is a form of political violence; Terror is a feeling. How you undertake a literal, rather than metaphoric, war on such a thing, or think it's even a good idea, is what boggles the mind. repeatedly. You don't investigate Act Blue or the Tea Party based on this guy's actions, and you don't shut down hawalla networks for people to send money to their families across the board because those systems have been used to fund some political violence.
Where this person could be put in the 'political violence but not terrorism' category to me is if you could demonstrate that he was acting based on a strategic rationale that was not designed to produce terror but simply undertaking an individual attack on a state institution. But that's not the point - the media in the U.S., as we know, makes no such fine distinctions 99% of the time. If he were a Muslim (or Arab or a few other things) non-state actor, or could be made to appear Muslim, or if his identity were unknown and it could be rumoured he were Muslim, he would be called 'a terrorist.'
and this fine and noble parsing that we see in the comments above - which is worthwhile, but only if done consistently - would not have been undertaken. Because the person in question - the nonWhite, non American, non-assumed Christian person - would get no empathy and would be dehumanised. Like a 'naxal' or 'a fundamentalist' or 'a terrorist.'
Stack's manifesto went far beyond hatred for tax authorities, he had a critique of government behavior broadly, not just to himself but to others. Even his comments about the Catholic Church has a long tradition.
I’m just not sure “Bawww the gubmint sucks and the IRS is picking on me!” really constitutes a comprehensive political ideology. Damn near every idea has a “long history,” that doesn’t make it terrorism either. Nobody really agrees on a good definition of terrorism, but just about everyone agrees that one of the baseline conditions is that the act of violence itself must be intended to achieve a political objective through incitement of fear and panic. If he’s not trying to scare people into meeting his demands it’s not terrorism, it’s a tantrum.
Akash #37
Bro,
Americans would never call Indians getting killed by Jihadis or Naxals as terrorism. Birds of a feather.. But, hey, there are quite a few indians who would do the same.
Fuk, the Americans had Headley eating out of their hand, but had to take him in when he wanted to target their buddies across the pond. Double fuk, Mahesh Bhatt's son was cavorting with that guy around town.
Just be glad Sagarika is not there in good ol' USA. She would surely blame this incident on "hindu terror," maybe write a book on the topic, at least sell a few t-shirts: beware of hindu taliban. Meanwhile, naxal and jihadi bombs are going off all around her.
as per the constitution of the yoonited states of america (read the document. the way the founding fathers intended it. with a teabag!), it is not terrorism unless the black box (do private planes have black boxes? sympathy forprivate plane flying tax dodgers!) recorded him saying allahu akbar.
don't worry, "dude". hindu violence in india is called "riots", not pogroms or terrorism, so there's really no need for you to complain.
a person who hates big government is a terrorist amirite. Clearly the teabaggers, hell anybody but progressives, need to be in prison. This should finally open our eyes to this obvious truth.
ah yes, "bizarro."
the "one true god, get them idolators" fixation of the hindus sikhs buddhists and jains, i'll try to remember that.
The Republicans are in a strange position these days. They now have to argue that a dude who flew a plane into a federal building is not a terrorist. Last week they had to argue that there is too much free speech at the campus of Irvine, UC.
the right to free speech is absolute and unquestionable. if you are a corporation, that is. if you are carrying a sign saying "bong hits 4 jesus", however, your right to free speech can be abridged. ask scalia or thomas, they'll explain it to you just right.
It's a lot harder to stage an insurrection since you need to actually field an army. Even if it's an army of ill-trained, ill-equipped rabble, you still need them out there to take and hold territory.
can we please stop talking about naxals already? I will delete any additional mention of naxals from this thread.
Look, FoxNews isn't going to call this man out as a terrorist because too much of his hodge-podge ideology matches with the core ideology of the Tea Party movement, a movement that FoxNews has worked hard to cultivate and agitate. Describing him as a terrorist will not only alienate the members of that group that secretly admire him, but will also put their continued support and admiration for the Tea Party movement under harsher scrutiny. And speaking as a software engineer, there are many who are libertarian, or have a dim view of the government in general, and vice versa, I find that at the libertarian meetings I've gone to, almost all are software engineers.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this guy was a libertarian or that it's because of libertarian ideology ( because what I've seen quoted, he's not a libertarian )
What is the point in all this?
They called a brown man a 'terrorist' so now we are going to call a white man a 'terrorist' and then everything will be even and there will be peace on earth ?
Isn't this whole topic a bit too petty and off-topic ?
Sure, SM looks for the desi angle in everything, but lets not stretch it ?
If this is terrorism then that guy who went on a shooting rampage at the army base, the other guy who went on a driving rampage (in san fran), the woman who shot colleagues for lost tenure, the guy who "terrorized" people by carrying an un-concealed weapon during an Obama townhall, etc etc are all terrorist.
So sure, lets label them all as terrorists and be done with it.
Lets make clear demarcations. They. Separate from us.
We of the clear consciences. We the dutiful taxpaying nationalist citizens (albeit browner than we'd like to be).
They, the misfits. They, the troublemakers. They, the terrorists.
We the liberals, the forward thinking elite bourgeois. They the communists, the naxalites, the L.T.T.E.
They. Separate from us.
Neatly labeled and boxed separately.
There's a dead man out there. A devastated family left behind. Some other innocents dead/injured in "collateral damage".
Lets demonize him and apply our labels, because how else would we define them and ourselves, if not by labels.
No. As has been explained a few hundred times already in this thread. Reading and understanding logic is fundamental.
The republican position in that incident--a muslim group disrupted a lecture given by an israeli official and were kicked out--was framed as pro free speech and was entirely consistent with even liberal theories of what constitutes free speech. only the far left tries to frame stopping those who prevent the speech of others as an act of censorship.
I guess its a testament to the prestige freedom of speech has that even censors are unwilling to call themselves such.
The NYTimes is a corporation. the CU case and the incident in Irvine UC are examples of why the American right is critical to maintaining freedom in this nation. The level of censorship on the left can be rather shocking.
hahaha. you are funny.
> No. As has been explained a few hundred times already in this thread. Reading and understanding logic is fundamental.
Ah yes, logic.
There are like 5 different definitions of terrorism up there in the comments.
And its all relative anyway(one mans terrorist is another mans....)
Logic requires some absolute truths and fallacies.
black or white. yes or no.
no greys and maybes.
Are we really arguing about how this dead man should be labeled?
Are your panties in a bunch because the media did not label him a terrorist?
What sort of juvenile inferiority complex are you guys harboring?
The title of the post speaks volumes.
Maju stated: The republican position in that incident--a muslim group disrupted a lecture given by an israeli official and were kicked out--was framed as pro free speech and was entirely consistent with even liberal theories of what constitutes free speech
Interesting that the right had to rely on liberal interpretation of what constitutes free speech on campuses. Funny, I thought all these years, the big problem on campuses was that the minority/unpopular opinion on issues of race, gays did not have enough protection. I would hope that Campus Freedom Network/FIRE will now be taking up the cause of the unpopular Irvine 11.
these statements are indicative of a peculiar behaviour often seen in partisans: they appear to have a vested interest in the belief that the opinions of the other side reflect an overwhelming zeitgeist. But this belief is only maintainable if one erases the influence of ones own side.
The links in 42 clearly demonstrate the NYTimes declined to label the Ft Hood shooting terrorism, or even political violence. Indeed Anand in 17 demonstrates even Foxnews declined early on. The president of the united states famously avoided any such label. So here we have huge institutional forces--the white house, the paper of record, even fox--taking your side and still, people can proclaim definitively that there would "not even be an argument" if he were muslim.
and if the white house and the paper of record can be erased, what of hugely influential progressive blogosphere, who regularly profess opinons like:
Just Because Someone Screams Allahu Akbar Doesn't Automatically Connect Them To A Terrorist Cell
Fox's mass leap to label Ft. Hood shootings 'terrorism' is classic ethnic/religious hysteria
most of the evidence so far seems to indicate this was a militarized case of "going postal" -- which is always a horrific thing, but lacks the political/ideological component that always defines real acts of terrorism.
...while simultaneously offerinfg opinions like this:
Huh? Since when is attempting to blow up a federal building NOT an act of domestic terrorism?
The only way your narrative is made possible is by pretending the above doesn't exist.
Which monied interest did Citizens United represent?
the libertarian right, along with the aclu left, has long created a broad "free-speech" consensus resisting the authoritarian left and right.FIRE (I believe has the likes of nat hetcoff are on the BOD) is indicative of this consensus.
But with the CU case, I fear we are losing the ACLU-left (though, i think the ACLU was on the right side of CU). But even the ACLU has tried to suppress the free speech rights of the St patricks day parade organizers, 4 liberal justices tried to suppress the free speech rights of the boy scouts, and recently a popular liberal congressman, alan grayson, attempted to jail (for 5 years) a critc…and was met with crickets from the left. it should be noted, he was using federal election laws as a pretext.
what dangerous about the UC case is that iits indicative to where the left is moving: ie toward censorship in the name of protecting minority rights, though they will frame the censorship as free speech. Hate speech laws are another example of this.
Firstly, I don't think American media is worth analyzing and criticizing. Any one who does so, upon being shocked by their double standards, is looking at them assuming that they are essentially objective and fair. They are not, nor do they strive to be. We should not wasting our energy on them, for they know no higher meaning to their existence than merely using their powerful position to tell people stories that they feel good hearing.
The issue is of inconsistency and double standards that you have raised is on two counts - first is the manner of reporting the act and second is the manner of reaction from the state toward the actor behind the act. The state surely is not consistent. The state cast numerous instantaneous doubts on the actions of the Fort Hood shooter, even while they are being cautious with this person, and he is even is being sympathized with. The point is *no one* sympathized with with the Fort Hood guy, nor was anyone cautious.
In America, it is common to sympathize, but not empathize. Anyone with pain just as grave as another will not get sympathy from the other if his pain is not of the same kind or caused by the same causes as the other's. When Fort Hood happened, it did not invite introspection on the part of the state or empathy. Rather than growing in awareness of the consequences of its own behavior, the state only sought to reinforce its long-held ideas - the idea that it is not in any way contributing to the harm that comes its way and it does not need to change of its own actions that fuel this harm. Rather than of think of such actions that are leading to such reactions, the state has only grown more ogre-ish and more ruthless in its self-defense. American understanding of pragmatism, prudence, causality and the workings of the world is juvenile at best and roguish at worst.
"Unverified reports, some from his family members, suggest that Major Hasan complained of harassment by fellow soldiers for being a Muslim"
--NYTimes editorial
Fort Hood: Obama urges caution amid fears of backlash against Muslims
thank you for the compendium of links about the hypocrisy of the right wing media. it is awesome.
not sure what your point is, manju. good to see that the nyt was cautious, but the right wing blogosphere and media were right away eager to label ft hood as muslim terrorism. the fox videos are easy to find as are lieberman's statements. here is a much longer list of what you are trying to deny. enjoy
other things which are problematic ONLY when some people do it.
my point was made in 83. I've supplied you with examples from hugely powerful institutions---the white house and the paper of record--both doing what many here claim doesn't exist. By pretending this doesn't exist, only then can one come to the conclusion that "It is only domestic terrorism if the person is Arab" or "nor was anyone cautious" (in regards to ft hood) or "Maybe only white people get the mental illness pass?"
OK, I supplied you with quotes in 83 from a left-wing blog denying any political motivation for the fort hood shooter while simultaneously jumping to conclusions about this guy. Now, if i were to conclude from that evidence that "the media" has a double standard and that everyone is jumping to concussions here while they didn't with fort hood, what would be the flaw in my reasoning?
Please show me where I denied this.
Good job, Suede. You said it better than I could. Complaining about how groups of people are percieved and how unfair the media labels of them are, is a waste of time. Yes, life is not fair. Pointing out how unfair the world is doesn't seem to be changing anything, it just provokes a tit for tat response. Sepia Mutiny is a form of media though, and therefore is primarily concerned w/ media perception of south asians and south asian americans. So it's not surprising that this is the angle of the post. Ta-da!
He sounds like a "tea party" member. Does that count as belonging to a group that preaches about the take over of a government?
The funniest thing was the way right wing radio and Fox news rushed to label this guy "crazy". Glenn Beck even had a "Camera 2 inches from his face" moment, where he says "I watch the news every day and it doesnt make me crazy." I laughed until my stomach hurt, as the guy, who cries on his show every other week and will make the camera look him in the eye, claims the news doesnt make him crazy.
So has the IRS announced revenge plans yet, in the way that the CIA did recently in Afghanistan? I was under the impression that the CIA had some type of spy code to keep its overseas missions secret, come hell or highwater. But all that regulations stuff seems to go out the window when you're pissed off enough. So did Stack succeed in pissing off the IRS? Do Americans need to watch over their shoulders for pissed off agents with pocket protectors and tube socks?
that you mix cause and effect. the left wing blog is applying the same logic as the right wingers to show what it implies.
the paper of record was far more ambiguous about nidal malik as the wikilink shows unlike the irs man.
o, please; you just made that up. There's no evidence those posts are parody's. Nor is Abhi's. Indeed, the writer in question, david neiwert, is known for his thesis arguing that the the radical right (militia, kkk) has close links to the mainstream one and that rhetoric emanating from the mainstream right enables right-wing terrorists. the book is called "the eliminationists." he cast a wide net, characterizing hate crimes as evidence of right-wing violence and even Lyndon larouche supporters as part of the right.
you are correct that the logic apes the guilt-by-association and jumping to conclusions that characterizes the right vis a vis Islamic terror...but this argument is indeed genuine and has been used by the likes of bill Clinton and Paul krugman.
it is not parody. it is just a clear elucidation of the logic.
I think Sepia Mutiny should follow Angry Asian Man and just disable comments. I thought this was a really cool post, but became discouraged and annoyed by the discussions in the comment section. Some of these opinions are just knee-jerk contrarianism without being informed of history, politics, or precedent.
Others have brought out the Patriot Act definition, the Dept of Defense definition, and the FBI definition of domestic terrorism, along with the very clear precedent of the unabomber, yet the harangue continues unabated.
This post was so on-target that I think it should be convert into an op-ed for a newspaper.
then I'm not sure what your objection is. he deploys similar logic that say daniel pipes does and he means it, except of course he doesn't deploy in regards to Islamic terror or any leftwing or environmentalist political violence. in those cases., the individuals mental state and personal issues take priority and linking the terrorist, if he's even called that, to any larger movement is Mccarthyism. The right wing practices something similar which i assume is the source of all the consternation here. ergo, i'm here to infrom you the flaw in your reasoning is that you're using the right as a substitute for all media.
now as to whether this is an effect of the right first deploying the logic (your cause/effect argument) i haven't he slightest but i doubt it. I recall bill clinton making a similar argument after OK city which was picked up by many liberals.
there's not much of an argument that radical right-wingers are fueled by dogwhistles and assorted dialectic in the right wing media and by right wing figures, just as nidal was incited and fueled by radical islamists. so your bringing up the point is a red herring. the qn is whether one can be labeled a terrorist action while the other can't.
well, there's certainly an arguement depending on which radical you hold morally repsonsable for the terrorst's actions. if its a radical iman then your're probaly ok. if you cite CAIR, you may be praticing islamophobia. the problem with your above statment is you draw a paralel between "radical islamists" and the "right wing media." the correct // would be "radical islamists" and the racist right, like the KKK or the author of the turner diaries, who are likely to directly influnce terrorists. the right wing media is more in te positon of CAIR, it can get iffy. this is where the argument lies.
ergo, I supplied you with examples of people lableing stack a terrorist but declining with nidal...contradicting abhi's narrative. You can also add the LAX El Al shooting, whch was not orignially reproted as terrorism or labled such by the FBI until months later, probably becuase the lone-shooter nature of the incident made it appear less terroristic. the kid with who flew a plane into a bulding with a bin laden note was also debatable. a similar deabte arose after the Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack.
Who's thinking up this chanakyan strategy of intervening in the teapot-IRS civil war? The other minorities (Blacks and Latinos) are not really getting their p___ in a twist over this incident. And they have far more experience than Indians in the peculiar American society. Take off the outrage junky activist goggles and look at the situation clearly.
You have to be brown or muslim to be called a terrorist
and as i said, that label is a direct reaction to the right wing labeling of nidal. and as i showed you, the nyt was much more willing to raise the t-word with nidal than with stack.
i will take your word for it. cuz faux's dogwhistles sound an awful lot like encouragement of crazies to me.
actually, you failed to substantiate either argument except to make a vague reference to wiki for the 2nd one. i'm not saying your wrong but it sounds like argument by assertion.
the question is, should they censor themselves b/c of crazies. after, all islamists have picked up the rhetoric of left vis a vis American foreign policy and criticism of Israel....but at what point is holding them morally responsible for terrorism tantamount ot McCarthyism.
no vague reference to wiki. there is a set of links.
no. but people will rightly draw a line from the fake outrage they generate to the real world consequences. reasonable people will see the difference between that and the spurious israel analogy that you draw.
yeah, but the sematic issue is not the core problem. this is a fight between militia types and the feds.
Believe me, we have considered it. I frankly don't bother reading comments on our own site anymore (some of my own posts being an exception) because most of them are worthless. If I recommend SM to someone I usually follow with "you don't have to read the comments." This wasn't always the case. When SM started it was a great place for discussion and had many enlightening comments...even from right-leaning readers. I used to actually learn a great deal and it was a treat. That was mostly due to the fact that the comment threads were heavily moderated and illogical and ignorant lines of argument were systematically dismantled and marginalized. So who comments on SM now? You got a good cross-section represented near the top of this comment thread. Many of the most prolific batch of current commenters are knee-jerk contrarians who enjoy commenting as a sport. A sport most are amateurs at. You see a lot of cherry picking of information (not always facts), Tu quoque fallacies, and a lot of random tangents that have nothing to do with the post. And then there is the subset of commenters that don't actually read the post. Ever. They read the title and the first sentence then they use the comment section to write their own blog post on some subject that may not even be related. But boy, it must be important if they are writing about it!
So who do I blame? Myself and our other bloggers. But seriously, we just don't have the time to address every stupid comment since we do this as a hobby. Bratton knew that the only way to take back New York City was to aggressively police even the graffiti artists and squeegee men. Right now the SM comment section is dominated by this type. So if you are an informed reader who doesn't like what you are reading in the comments please don't hold us SM bloggers responsible for some of the ignorance. Just know that our police department is underfunded and understaffed. We suggest that you just stay out of the neighborhood.
Just enjoy (or rail at inside) the posts, and pass them on to a friend. And thanks to all the lurkers out there that don't always feel the need to comment vomit. A few of you had nice things to say about this post over email and over twitter. I thank the silent majority.
Domestic terror is a big problem in the USA..it mostly happens from Christians or more likely those kids who shoot up schools..there is something fundamentally wrong in America, despite all that is right
From Abhi's post:
MR. GIBBS: All right, fire away.
Fire away? The old foot in the mouth, Mr. Gibbs?
I agree with Abhi. Not calling this demented guy a terrorist is like giving him a pass on "mental health" grounds. Never mind that terrorists too have mental health issues or they wouldn't be terrorists. But who cares? Their ideology and affiliations completely color our perception of them, but their mental sickness is as serious as Timothy McVeigh's, the postal workers', the Unabomber's and that of other mass killers who are never called terrorists.
Here's Glenn Greenwald's take, which is basically identical:
oops sorry - here's linky:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/19/terrorism
Always amusing to see non-whites defending white privilege at their own expense. Very stupid.
This nutjob was motivated by ideology as are the al-Qaeda, unlike the other examples you ridiculously try to lump him with.
You can't just cavalierly throw that word around because it makes you feel good. It actually means something and that has an impact on the real world. Especially given that we seem to be headed into a norm of detaining people indefinitely and withholding certain constitutional rights on the basis of terrorists being "enemy combatants."
> Always amusing to see non-whites defending white privilege at their own expense. Very stupid.
Wasn't defending anyone's privilege.
If I'm not agreeing with you, it doesn't mean I'm defending someones supposed superiority.
I just don't see the point in getting so worked up about the media not labeling him a terrorist.
Last time I will engage this stupidity. The point of "getting worked up" is the double standard! Not just in the media (who gives and ef about them, right??) but by OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. Same crime. One standard if you are white, another if you are not. If you don't get worked up over just a blatant double standard then nothing will work you up. And writing and bringing attention to the double standard IS doing something about it.
Abhi...I think he's a terrorist too, but your double standard argument was debunked effectively as early as Anand in 17. Clearly the NY Times did not label Nidal a terrorist, even when it was known he posted comments on the Internet about suicide bombings, yelled ""Allahu akbar!", and held anti-American and anti-war views. it wasn't until evidence emrgerded of contact with -- well--terrorist, that the tide began to turn. and even then they hedged their bet, asking:
your accusations against the Obama admin are equally weak, as you've been presented with evidence that they also declined the terrorist label for nidal. there was more debate about this than I think you remember--probably because of the peculiar partisan phenomena i identified in 83. for example, the noecon TNR said at the time:
doesn't quite fit the narrative, eh? I think if you examine the cases of the SUV terrorist or the LAX shooter--both Muslim assailants--you will find a similar reaction.
So the basic takeaway is that if an opinion expressed here, no matter how respectfully but cogently argued, is not in line within an acceptable range of the opinion of the post, then it is "knee-jerk contrarian" and consisting of "tu quoque fallacies"? I think therein lies the reason for the general breakdown in comments. If a more conservative opinion is expressed, it is immediately attacked as smacking of uncle tomism and fascism or as being bereft of facts.
Say what you want about Manju, but he/she has at least attempted to argue on the basis of facts and not ad homs, but was ultimately cast aside--in spite of plentiful links. Since we're talking double standards here, why was Aseem Shukla so shoddily treated in the comments then? One of the commenters practically pounced on him as though he were Bal Thackeray himself. Dr. Shukla is a representative of the Hindu American Foundation--an wholly american foundation--and was attempting to politely respond before he was forced to defend himself. Would Nihad Awad of CAIR have been treated so shabbily? I am not raising this question to be "anti-minority" as some would predictably say, as I have plenty of friends from all religious backgrounds. I only raise that point because those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I would urge those of you who say "look at the facts, it's simple logic" etc etc, to look at your own records. A number of bloggers here have themselves professed ignorance about key issues in the subcontinent, so the leitmotif of having to put up with ignorant and underinformed rightwing malcontents becomes even more misplaced. Now if merely pointing this out as politely as possible (my tone in all of this is nothing but civil) gets me banned from this blog, so be it. All you would be doing then is proving Manju's point about the far left and freedom of speech. Please bear in mind, I say this as a registered democrat. Trolls like bizarro feed off of this attitude towards more conservative perspectives and their mockery and one line non sequiturs are encouraged through benign neglect. This forces legitimate commenters such as manju and yoga fire to change tactics and tone to match bizarro. So if this blog is sincere about restoring the tone of civility, that is a good place to start.
In sum, I think this blog is a great idea and a wonderful resource for south asians of all backgrounds and communities. Moreover, I commend the founding bloggers for not attempting to cash in on this--truly a rare showing. However, if you're going to ask the question "why has there been a decline in the tone and overall quality of comments" it's only fair to do a little self-reflection as well. I think it is possible for people across a wide range of political perspectives and ideologies to engage in civil conversation. However, the onus for civility is on all of us and not just the conservative few.
Terrorism.... its a made up word to fit the times and evoke fear.
The media is full of terrorists.
This guy had a problem with the IRS, and with the current state of his reality.
He did something as a response.
Some will call it suicide, some will call it terrorism.
But its a free country.
He is free to kill himself, and we are free to judge him and judge one another.
In my opinion, it is change- like that stuff Obama was talking about.
I don't mean to side with any extremists of any sort, but this world does need to change,
and this Texan, like many other people led to the breaking point, were seeking change.
And now I will file my taxes seeking a refund.
Google news search for 'fort hood' + terrorist, 11/04/09 - 11/08/09 - 127 hits.
Google news search for austin + terrorist, past week leading up to 2/20/10 - 320 hits.
Just a rough cut, which I think calls for more investigation, not the conclusion that there's no double standard in coverage or bias. My opinion.
NYT 11/7:
Washington Post 11/6:
Washington Post 11/8
Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va., in 2001, when its spiritual leader was Anwar al-Aulaqi, a figure who crossed paths with Al-Qaida associates, including two Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers, one senior U.S. official said.
so it's a mixed bag on a quick surface glance, but it has some links to an alleged global terrorist network.
You still don't get it Manju. My argument is not debunked because you say it is so. It also isn't my argument anymore. Lots of people before and after this post saw the same double standard I did. Greenwald in Salon and Sullivan in the Atlantic highlighted it as well. A dude McVeighed a Federal building 9/11 style and he gets far less coverage than similar incidents were the person is "foreign." The press secretary then implies that terrorists can only be foreign as well. You can rationalize that away all you want. Peace.
I'm hoping there is a journalism student or faculty member out there that can go the extra mile on this and actually document the media and Political bias in a research paper.
Yajnavalkya, I don't know what Shukla comment you are referring to but I would happily be rid of comments like your second sentence (pure religion baiting). It is the kind of bullshit I am tired of and why the comments section is often worthless.
Now to actually enjoy my weekend.