How long will it be before we can start treating *sex offenders* and druggies the same way?
I think both the Fort Hood incident and today's can be called terrorism; depends on the definition. No one said it had to be a rational or convincing reason for them to act. There is a fair chance both the perps were nuts in one way or another as well.
The disparity in treatment is obvious by it's utter absence from this thread.
Government agencies were deliberately attacked by a homicidal creep in a plane, two people were critically burned and one person is still unaccounted for, I think. And he burned his own house down into the bargain.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-18-2010 at 08:23 PM.
On the banks of the Hafel, about the middle of the sixteenth century, lived a horse-dealer, named Michael Kohlhaas. He was the son of a schoolmaster, and was one of the most honest, while at the same time he was one of the most terrible persons of his period. Till his thirtieth year this extraordinary man might have passed as a pattern of a good citizen. In a village, which still bears his name, he held a farm, on which, by means of his business, he was enabled to live quietly. The children whom his wife bore him, he brought up in the fear of God to honesty and industry; and there was not one among his neighbours who had not felt the benefit of his kindness or his sense of justice. In short, the world might have blessed his memory had he not carried one virtue to too great an extreme. The feeling of justice made him a robber and a murderer.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zJG...age&q=&f=falseLike all other virtues valour has its limits:overstep them, and you tread the path of vice;consequently a man might go right through the dwelling-place of valour into rashness, stubbornness and madness if he knows not where the boundaries lie: yet at their margins they are not easy to pick out.
From this consideration was born the custom observed in warfare of punishing even by death those who stubbornly persist in the defense of a fort, when by the very rules of war, it cannot be sustained. Otherwise if there were hope of escaping punishment whole armies would be held up by chicken coops.
I think applying the term terrorism to both these incidents cheapens the very meaning of terrorism...in the old days we used to simply call this the 'lone nut' theory...that was then, this is now...
Lone nuts can't be terrorists?
Where's Yonivore?
Guy was ed up.
Call it whatever you want.
Guy was ed up.
Yeah he was. He even admitted it. He wanted people to hear his cry. Burning his house down, attempting to kill his wife/kid in the process, flying a plane into a federal building and writting his reasons down for the world to ponder. He wanted to be heard and boy, he got his wish.
The good news for us all is his message will be forgotten because he killed people. The folks that felt his frustration will not shout his name, he is a murderer, a crazy and we all will live our lives as if he never existed. Another blimp on the screen. We didn't hear his voice for 55 years and we won't hear it now.
Asked if he would characterize Stack's actions as terroristic, APD Chief Acevedo just called them
<<criminal acts by a lone individual>>.
Attacking government workers with your airplane in Austin apparently doesn't count as terrorism.
I guess to people terrorism involves a conspiracy, which in turn involves more than one person....perhaps what you are thinking of is terror...which one person can cause...
So then: Stack lacked the notoriety of being a member of a foreign terror network plotting against us?
But so did McVeigh, and he wasn't disqualified on that count. He was a "lone kook" too. He too, bombed federal employees in a major southern city. McVeigh too had a mad, over-elaborate ideological justification for his actions.
Does the scale of death disqualify the attack? Are we back to counting bodies as a metric?
Luckily that loser couldn't even pull off his murder-suicide correctly and hit that retaining wall before the building.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 02-19-2010 at 02:30 AM.
that was a conspiracy...does Terry Nichols ring a bell...besides there may have been other players that we may never know about..or did they ever find a body to go with the extra leg?But so did McVeigh, and he wasn't disqualified on that count. He was a "lone kook" too. He too, bombed federal employees in a major southern city. McVeigh too had a mad, over-elaborate ideological justification for his actions.
There goes the remote control theory.
So I've heard. John Doe #2, Jesse Trentadue etc.. Please educate me.
I also can count to two. Your point? That is not an international criminal consortium plotting terror. That is just Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.
I wasn't keeping track of the legs, Dan.
Who ended up with an odd number of legs and why is that important?
Why is he not a terrorist?
Because he attacked IRS.
/drums
J/K IRS, don't audit me bro.
The non compos mentis thing ordinarily would be a spanner in the works, the death of Stack apparently moots it, and it remains to be seen whether the sanity of Maj. Hasan becomes an issue in his trial.
Not many crazed nutjobs are rich enough, retirement wipeout crying aside, to afford their own planes.
What a complete loser.
Probably because he overloaded it with fuel, and it didn't handle properly. What a dumb ass. Darwin in action.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
