#ATXPlaneCrash: Pilot Wrote Manifesto

It is mind-boggling that there are people who don't think someone writing an anti-government diatribe, setting his house on fire, then flying a plane into a building housing the object of his anger with the intent of killing those inside is not an act of "terrorism."

So, Wes, you're suggesting that people grabbing a slice of pizza at midday in Jerusalem were necessarily killed in order to exapnd the Gazans search for freedom? Because if that's the case, history will prove that you're a bit misguided.

My guess is that the definitions are defined by those people making up the definitions. As in folks who insist that Zionism is racism and that therefore Israel is Apartheid which is why somebody blew up the Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem. If that's your definition of a freedom fighter, then you need to grab a different dictionary talking to me about peace, history, and terrorism.

I'm only suggesting that you are either unable to understand or unwilling to admit that there are two sides to any conflict, each with legitimate gripe.

By selecting the 2001 S'barro bombing you couldn't have chosen a worse example to make your case. While I support Israel's right to exist, it is the failure of some Israelis to validate the concerns of Gazans that guarantees that suicide attacks will continue.

continued...

There's a reason that Palestinian suicide bombers are hailed as heroes by many in the ME. It would behoove you to understand the reasons why that is true.

Point of Sbarro was to talk about terrorism versus freedom fighting. The plight of the Gazans is a very unfortunate circumstance and I'm sure you can see that it's not all the Israelis fault. Hamas and the PA haven't been very helpful to their people. As for how the general view in the Middle East highlights suicide bombers as heroes... that is why the Middle East is embroiled in war. No one has been honest with anyone for a long time. Shiite and Sunni is just as whacked as Jew and Arab.

But back to terrorism. I am sure the definition has changed throughout the course of history, but modern day terrorism pretty much began with the Munich Olympics where the perpetrators took advantage of an international

audience to make an unnecessarily violent political statement.

Aside from the nomenclature discussion here, this incident serves as a painful reminder that most of the security theater our society has invested in does little to prevent the truly dedicated attacker. Instead, it serves to discomfort the populace and perhaps bolster the sentiment that the terrorists have won.

To comment on the political side of this, I'd like to point out that the Republican party bitched for weeks on end about Obama's handling of the underwear bomber, yet nobody is holding Rick Perry's feet to the fire over slack security allowing the governor's mansion and now this IRS building to be torched during his watch. Oh, not to mention the random shooting that took place at the capital building a couple of weeks back. What is Rick Perry doing to keep Texans safe?

Terrorists attempt to place terror in their victims' lives. Someone who considers terrorists to be their freedom fighters obviously doesn't know much about terrorism. Unless it's a matter of freedom to blow up a pizzeria at mid-day.

Someone who sees a clear line between terrorist and freedom fighter obviously doesn't know much about history. The distinction is largely based on who ends up winning the war. You may find British accounts of the exploits of Revolutionary War hero General Francis Marion (a/k/a the Swamp Fox) enlightening.

Fair enough- but that happens weekly in the United States (just google "Man drives car into building") yet no one is afraid to go to work for fear of a car driving through the wall. Some of those events have hostile motivations (ie, trying to kill their boss) with specific targets, yet they're not terrorists according to the news.

Just because it was a single person and not part of a well-organized machine doesn't mean that it wasn't terrorism.

Also, just because you aren't scared that a plane will fly into your building doesn't mean that it wasn't an act of terrorism. That's a stupid argument. I wasn't worried that a plane would fly into my workplace after 9/11, but that doesn't mean that 9/11 wasn't a terrorist activity. Same with the OK City bombing. I was definitely not concerned that someone would blow up a van where I worked. Doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism.

Lastly, his activity was intentionally calculated to cause people fear and to intimidate the government. Just because it didn't means that it wasn't effective, not that it wasn't terrorism.

If he had driven an SUV -- maybe a large one like a GMC Suburban -- into the first floor of the building at 125mph with the same exact motives, would that be considered terrorism?

YES. How much more clear can this be?

He WAS a terrorist, though; trying to inflict change by scaring civilians is the very definition of the term.

Are people actually terrified and going to change because of this guy flying a single prop airplane into a building?

True terrorism actually does enact the change (for the worse) on a day-to-day basis; America, Israel, and India (among others) have changed significantly after terrorist attacks. I'm not sure how this attack is classified as "terrorism" since nothing about it will cause peoples' daily lives to change. (Though, I suppose there might be tighter regulations on who can get into their privately own single prop cessnas?)

wattage, spare us the right-wing nutjob crap. George Washington didn't go attack British civilians (or even civil servants); he attacked members of their armed forces.

For what it's worth though, the British Parliament did actually use the term "insurgent" to describe the American Revolutionaries in a number of documents/resolutions/discussions that are on record.

I agree with you completely. Wes does not.

"Yeah, this was terrorism. He wrote that he hope he would start a revolution."

The fact that this guy wanted to "start a revolution" doesn't inherently make him a terrorist.

That was my point, not that George Washington, et al were terrorists.

Yeah, this was terrorism. He wrote that he hope he would start a revolution.

In that case, all attacks for the purpose of change are "terrorism" -- including the work of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, et al.

To be clear: I'm in no way defending the action of flying a plane into a building (much less setting your house on fire), but this isn't necessarily "terrorism" just because it involved a shocking event and/or because he wanted to instigate change.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's all a matter of perspective.

Agreed, and in this case, one man was an asshole who watched Braveheart or something one too many times.

How is it a "terrorist" attack?

Are you "terrified" to go to work? Are you "terrified" to get in a single propellor plane? Are you "terrified" to file your taxes?

It was a targeted attack on a specific building/organization- it's not "terrorism". It's not an attack that will change our daily lives in any substantial manner. No one is going to be "vigilant" because of this.

Real acts of "terror" -- coordinated attacks to fly multiple planes into buildings, blow up hotels, use buses as bombs, blowing up oneself in shopping malls or public places of gathering that target indiscriminately large numbers of innocent folks -- are intended to change the behavior of the general populace because we're inherently "terrified" that we'll be injured or die doing routine actions.

This was not "terrorism".

Ask an employee of the IRS if they feel terrified, or as though this nutjob's actions were designed to terrify government employees.

According to MSNBC, Homeland Security officials are reporting that "the case does not appear to be terrorism."

Excuse me? This seems to be a classic example of anti-government "terrorist" (except for the fact the perpetrator did not have brown skin and was not a Muslim). I guess Tim McVeigh wasn't a terrorist either.