Austin Plane Crash- Criminal Act or Domestic Terrorism?

[DeadBattery]

If you haven't already heard about it, read about it here

A pilot furious with the Internal Revenue Service crashed his small plane into an Austin, Texas, office building where nearly 200 federal tax employees work on Thursday, igniting a raging fire that sent massive plumes of thick, black smoke rising from the seven-story structure.

So, do you think this was a criminal act or an act of domestic terrorism?

Explain your reasoning.

I believe this was an act of domestic terrorism because his intent was to kill and cause destruction.
The definition of terrorism is: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or idealogical in nature.

It was calculated, against civilians and definitely political (from reading his manifesto).

 

[dontbeajew]

It was just a criminal Act. Joe stack just wanted to end his life and destroy a IRS building, he even set his own house on fire before flying into the building. I don't think he had any intent to kill anyone, he just wanted to give the IRS a little ****. I live in Austin, they wouldn't quit showing the damn thing on the news.

 

[olliepop]

It is domestic terrorism. He was determined to do this because of outstanding tax payments and was outraged with the whole system so he flew a plane into their building to terrorise them like they did to him.

 

[phazzedout]

Would it be bad to say, "Unsung Hero"?

To be honest... how many of you wouldn't love to blow up an IRS building. Honestly.

Especially when you stop and think what our taxes will be spent on. If I didn't care for anyone I would think about it but in the end they still win.

I remember at first I never understood why people protested by not paying their taxes. Now I get why they do it, sometimes we have to pay for things that do not matter to us.

 

[DeadBattery]

Would it be bad to say, "Unsung Hero"?

To be honest... how many of you wouldn't love to blow up an IRS building. Honestly.

Especially when you stop and think what our taxes will be spent on. If I didn't care for anyone I would think about it but in the end they still win.

I remember at first I never understood why people protested by not paying their taxes. Now I get why they do it, sometimes we have to pay for things that do not matter to us.

If he didn't like the spending, he could have expressed his dislike in a much more non-violent way. I don't think he is a hero by taking a plane with all the jet fuel possible and crashing it into a building where innocent people work; he's a killer.
Blowing up a building with workers in it isn't fun; it's cruel.
Also, the IRS doesn't spend money, it collects it.

 

[fractalfeline]

All I can say is

So my fiancee is a prophet. We were talking about 9/11 once upon a time a few years ago, and he started lamenting "Man, I bet people would be a whole lot less upset if it was the IRS rather than the Pentagon and the World Trade Center." And I was like "Seriously! No one would miss taxes." Completely in jest, of course.

And then it happens for real. And he's like "OMG you won't guess what I heard." And when he told me they flew a plane into the IRS I was like :eek4: !!!

If it weren't for the civilians who were injured (and that one that's probably dead), I'd say Good Job Bro! I think I'd like it better if it was right after 5pm when everyone's on the road stuck in traffic to watch it, but no one's actually in the building.

As for the actual question here: criminal act. He just wanted to stick it to someone, and the IRS was a good target. Maybe he had a manifesto but that's just to make him seem more like a rebel and less like a total moron.

Reminds me of the Killdozer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

 

[joejv4]

OK, I voted "Criminal act"
Why? Because what we have with this guy, is someone that snapped and acted out in a violent way. Much like the "disgruntled postal workers" who brought us the slang term "going postal".

This wasn't terrorism, because of intent. The intent, as mentioned above, was to "stick it to the IRS", not to instill fear in the population. Terrorists operate in an organized way, so as to wage a campaign of violent acts, devised to instill fear and "terror" in people who they dislike or have a religious, philosophical, or political difference with.

This guy, owed a ton of taxes, knew he was in trouble, most likely had the IRS on his butt, and snapped. His tirade was against the IRS, and he acted out against the IRS. First by torching his house so that the IRS couldn't have it, then by crashing into their office. He targeted that which was the source of the stress that pushed him over the edge. A criminal act by someone that could easily be considered criminally insane.

 

[iluvme]

imo, it's a criminal act
i mean what the **** does "domestic terrorism" mean? it's another term (invented by politics or media ?) depicting a "propaganda".......... it's like what i read from the book "1984" by orwell.........

 

[fractalfeline]

imo, it's a criminal act
i mean what the **** does "domestic terrorism" mean? it's another term (invented by politics or media ?) depicting a "propaganda".......... it's like what i read from the book "1984" by orwell.........

This is only mildly coherent. Would you mind clarifying your position better? Which propaganda is it depicting? What about it reminds you of 1984? (It's one of my favorites, btw )

Are you saying that terrorism is, by definition, not domestic? As in, if it occurs within the framework of a society or culture, against others of the same society or culture, that it's a criminal rather than a terrorist act? It's only terrorism if it comes from another society of culture, and/or based in a basic intolerance for differences?

 

[xav0989]

First let's make things clear. What is the definition of criminal act and what is the definition of domestic terrorism, and terrorism. Until we set those things clear, this discussion will go nowhere.

 

[joejv4]

OK, so here's the definition of terrorism - and it does not fit with the Austin Plane crash case.

Noun: Terrorism
1. The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

This was a case of an individual losing his marbles and acting out against the entity that caused the stress that made him snap - criminal act, not terrorism.

 

[xav0989]

OK, so here's the definition of terrorism - and it does not fit with the Austin Plane crash case.

Noun: Terrorism
1. The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

This was a case of an individual losing his marbles and acting out against the entity that caused the stress that made him snap - criminal act, not terrorism.

In that case, let's also agree that Domestic Terrorism is actually not a thing since Terrorism by itself does not include any reference to the land of origin of the terrorist. This leaves us, as joejv4 said, with either terrorism or criminal act. Since this individual didn't want to intimidate nor cause fear in the civilians but rather attack (directly) a society, IRS, we can make it clear that this was a "simple" criminal act.