Andrew Joseph Stack was not a "tax protester."
He was not a freedom fighter. (How many of the gormless Teabaggers who have proclaimed him so were screaming that the pathetic Taint Bomber should have never been read his rights?)
He was not a common criminal, garden-variety murderer-of-a-stranger-who-did-him-no-harm.
He was not "just a nutjob."
This dead white lying thieving tax-dodging murdering arsonist mofo was a terrorist.
Why is this even a question?
Angry bastard flies an airplane into a government office, killing individual human beings because he wants to force political change through fear -- that's a terrorist, folks. That's the feckin' definition of terrorist. And all the dumbasses who call him a hero need a one-way trip to Gitmo for fomenting insurrection against the legitimate government.
I do not give a shit that he was a WASP terrorist.
Pour sand in his jockey shorts and give him a spray-on tan, and how many "journalists" would be fretting over what to call him?
Fantastic commentary. As always, absolutely spot on.
ReplyDeleteIf you're just catching up, you may not have heard that after reading that Mr. Stack made negative references to GWB in his manifesto, Teabags declared hima "liberal". Which is the same as "terrorist" to them.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree. He was just a murdering criminal. The label "terrorist" gives his actions a power they don't deserve. People are terrified of "terrorists" which is exactly what the "terrorist" wants. People make bad decisions when they are afraid. Look at most US policy since 9/11. Most people are vigilant about criminals, but not terrified. Being vigilant leads to much better policy.
ReplyDeleteDouglas
I'm with Douglas on this one- a terrorist seeks to destroy something (lifestyle, beliefs) whereas this dude is simply using his life and others to make a disgruntled statement. Much like a angry ex-employee takes the rifle to work and mows down his former coworkers, so everyone can feel his anger. Both are disgusting acts, but I think to liken them to eachother is unfair.
ReplyDeleteMiare
You can debate the terminology as long as you want, but the T[axed] E[nough] A[lready] baggers have been overdue for one of their believers to lose it and kill people.
ReplyDeleteTheir thought-leaders (Fox, Dick Armey, etc.) have been whipping them up into a froth just as much as any jidhadist mullah does with his followers.
I'm frankly surprised we haven't seen more of it. And grateful, for that matter.
The pilot removed seats from the plane in order to carry a fuel drum so that when he crashed, it would be "extra" explosive. He did this, why - as a courtesy to photographers looking for an exciting photo? No. He did it in order to increase the TERROR he could inflict on his victims. Terrorist.
ReplyDeleteThe "terrorist" label gives these criminals more power. As a nation we would be much better off if we declined to give them that power. The world would be a much better place if GWB had eschewed the "terrorist" label and called the 9/11 murders "criminals". People make bad decisions when they are afraid. The goal of a "terrorist" is to create terror, to make people afraid. I personally decline to be afraid and refuse to call them anything other than criminals and murders.
ReplyDeleteDouglas
Well, will this terrorize the rest of us? Who knows...it seems clear his intent was to terrorize and I'm pretty sure his actions fit all the current government definitions. Maybe the revolution will indeed be televised.
ReplyDeleteHere's something similar:
http://storm-nemesis.blogspot.com/2010/02/truth-of-crazy.html
Having witnessed the appetite of the American people for torture and their willingness, even eagerness, to be controlled by fear, the unintended consequences of abandoning our core principles are that the definition eventually gets expanded.
ReplyDelete"We have met the enemy, and he is us"
Margaret
Tilikum is back in the show. http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/30/2140847/whale-that-killed-trainer-returns.html
ReplyDelete