Yes, It’s Terrorism, but where from?

No Right Turn lashes out at the Obama administration for not calling the attack on the IRS “terrorism”.

This morning, a man crashed a plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. He left behind a manifesto, an angry rant which made it clear his actions were based on libertarian / [tea party] ideology.

US Law defines “terrorism” as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents”. International law defines it as violent acts motivated by a political, religious or ideological cause carried out to coerce, intimidate or influence a government or population. This act meets either definition. But the White House is saying its not terrorism.

The message is clear: crazed right wingers who murder because they hate taxation aren’t terrorists. Instead, you’re only a terrorist if you’re Muslim. Its a disgusting double-standard, and another example of US bigotry.

Right. So the left-wing Obama white house is really reluctant to label a crazy “right winger” as terrorist.

Sure, that makes complete sense.

Patterico agrees with the “he’s a terrorist” thesis, but has another point.

I don’t even see how this is a political issue. Sure, if I were Scott Eric Kaufman, and therefore prone to making cheap political points about the effect of strong political rhetoric on unstable people, I would note Stack’s criticism of Bush:

As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

And his ranting about health care:

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.

And his other expressions of opposition to capitalism:

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)

But while it’s good to note how Big Media tries to pretend these facts out of existence, it makes no sense to politicize this as a left-right thing. Any more than it makes sense to blame Rush Limbaugh or any rational conservative for the murder of George Tiller, as SEK does.

Ranting about George Bush, believes the current health care needs reformed, hates capitalism. I’d also add he rants about organised religion too – mainly their tax breaks.

That’s hardly “tea party ideology” (note that I/S used the disgusting sexual term that the left have adopted in the US) – their beef is big government, and big government spending, particularly on health care. It’s yet another in a long list of flimsy charges against the Tea Parties. (Apparently dissent was only patriotic under Bush – who lest we forget “was” Hitler.)

This guy was just all round crazy.  He acted alone. There’s no one to interrogate about future attacks for that reason, so whether this is called terrorism is neither here nor there.

But if you can connect him to a legitimate political protest like the Tea Party movement….

%d bloggers like this: