IRS Suicide Pilot Is Not a “Terrorist,” But Environmental Activists Are?
Feb 19th, 2010 by Will Potter
A man intentionally flew his airplane into an IRS office in Austin as a part of suicide attack yesterday, and left behind a manifesto outlining his anti-government grievances, but politicians and the press are somehow unsure about whether it should be labeled terrorism. Meanwhile, a bill was introduced in Washington State this session labeling civil disobedience and First Amendment activity as “eco-terrorism.”
It’s not an isolated instance. Across the country, at the state and federal level, both pre-9/11 and post-9/11, corporations and the politicians who represent them have campaigned to label animal rights and environmental activists as the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Even the most radical underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front have never harmed a human being.
Yet those who have murdered abortion providers and flown planes into building escape the label.
Let’s take a closer look at the systemic disparities.
These have all been labeled terrorism in the press, state houses or the courts:
- Washington “Eco-terrorist” Bill Includes Civil Disobedience and First Amendment Activity
- Utah Bill Would Make Environmentalists Like Tim DeChristopher “Eco-Terrorists”
- Animal Rights Activists Charged As Terrorists for Chalking Slogans on Public Sidewalks and Wearing Masks at Protests
- Canadian Politician Says PETA Throwing a Pie is Terrorism
- ELF Activist Receives Longer Prison Sentence Than Racists Who Attempted to Assassinate Obama
- Ag Industry Calls for Prosecutions of Undercover Animal Activists
- Appellate Court: Encouraging Civil Disobedience is Not Protected Speech
According to the FBI, none of these recent crimes are terrorism:
- Threatening to kill or injure police officers at a public tax protest assembly called a “Tea Party”
- Louisiana Man Convicted of Civil Rights Violation in Connection with Cross-Burning
- E-Mailing Threatening Communications to Judges
- Threatening Employees of Latino Civil Rights Organizations
- Man Held Hostages at Gun Point inside Post Office
- Homeland Security Says Timothy McVeigh Isn’t a Terrorist, But Peace Activists Are
Focusing scarce anti-terrorism resources on animal rights and environmental activists, while there are clearly domestic groups who have, and will continue, to carry out physical violence, puts all Americans at risk. Perhaps if the government spent less time preparing for attacks by environmentalists, events like this could be prevented.
Thanks for this. I saw a video online of FOX news anchors claiming this wasn't terrorism, just a disgruntled man who wasn't happy with the government. Apparently terrorism only applies to foreigners and, as you point out, animal and environmental activists. This was an act of terrorism, regardless.
Will, I know it's been a while since I've seen him on here…but if Joe responds to this, I'm positive that I know what he's going to say. I'll email it over to you so that when he says it, I can brag about being right.
You haven't heard from Joe? I thought you two would have been valentines.
The terrorist pie attack made me smile ….
But the part of the racist assassination being seconded to the ELF guy sentencewise, that made me want to laugh ….
HAHAHA….no, sadly enough, I brought him a pack of chocolates and a dozen but the agent working the front desk at his field office wouldn't let me up to see him.
I was about to say that if you receive roses from a secret admirer, you might want to check the flowers for “bugs.”
I asked Joe, and he assured me that I can't catch crabs from roses…I'm assuming that's what you meant by “bugs”…anyway, then he asked me for my phone number and social security number. He said he needed to “add something” to my phone, but ever since, the reception sucks and I keep getting this weird clicking noise. I should never have let him borrow my phone.
bugs as in “listening devices”…lol Thanks Lin, that gave me a chuckle.
[...] It’s impossible for me not to draw a comparison to the recent “incident” in Austin, Texas, where an anti-government crazy named Joe Stack flew a plane into an Internal Revenue Service building, killing himself and one employee while injuring a dozen others. A few friends have forwarded me his manifesto, and expressed to me how much ’sense’ it seems to make. Indeed, while the Tea Party is celebrating Stack as an American hero, even some allies on the left seem to be convinced that Stack must not be all that bad of a guy because he denounced Congress’ failure to pass health care reform. I find this completely infuriating. Make no mistake – the only difference between Joe Stack and Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber who killed 168 at a similar federal building, is that Stack didn’t succeed. And yet, the consensus seems to be that what Stack did wasn’t terrorism. [...]
This makes perfect sense to me, unfortunately. Killing people doesn't cause big corporations to lose profit. That's why it's not a big deal.
the oklahoma city bombing was labeled terrorism in the 90s. according to the patriot act terrorism is “(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State”. which would make flying a plane into a building terrorism. under their definition of the law it would also be terrorism for police to use rubber bullets against peaceful protesters.
I don't buy the suggestion that Joe Stack is a terrorist. It wasn't an act in furtherance of any sort of coherent political aim; sure, it was the use of deadly force and destruction of property, but it had no political ask to it, like “stop abortion” or “no animal testing!” Going postal doesn't make someone a terrorist. I think there are plenty of strong examples that can be used about how the label of terrorist is unfairly applied, but this isn't one of them.
It may not be coherent, but there certainly was a political ask, and he has plenty of supporters that have perceived it that way as well:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/...
The way people try to spin Joe Smith for their own cause is pretty well disconnected from the man himself. At best, he can be linked to some small group that tried to save on taxes by declaring a church some 25-30 years ago; what sort of political ask is there based on his history and letter? Reform of tax treatment for contract engineers? That's a stretch.
There's certainly a case for advocacy of terrorism that's not being called out with the fringe elements supporting him, but I don't see a very clear case for the act itself being terrorism.
“Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends” — Boaz Ganor
A terrorist is anyone who causes harm to others or the earth. Doesn't matter if this guy was part of a political group or not. He deliberately caused harm. That's why he's a terrorist. That's why Monsanto and Huntingdon Life Sciences are terrorists. And that's why Paul Watson and folks in the ALF/ELF are not terrorists.
A terrorist is someone who tries to force political change through violence or the threat of violence, thats why Watson and the ALF are terrorist.
[...] Potter at Green is the New Red has a quick rundown of actions the government considers terrorism and those it has called the [...]
If the politicians allow corporations to define terrorism this way, we will be much more vulnerable to the real terrorists.
Sorry, Joe, the ALF and Paul Watson are just protectors of animals. They're altruistic individuals who risk their own lives to stop the torture and murder perpetrated by terrorists (more commonly known as vivisectors and whalers) who hide behind unjust or unenforced laws.
Check out the ALF guidelines. Quite clear. And I don't consider property damage to be violence because property should never be valued above life, especially if that property is an instrument of suffering and death.
How many individuals—human or nonhuman—has Watson killed? Yep, zero. That's a damn good record for more than three decades of defending marine life, sometimes under the most harrowing circumstances. It demonstrates an obvious deep respect for all life. Too bad we can't say the same for the whalers….
Look at the true origins of the violence, and you'll see that these courageous individuals are only responding as defenders of life. To remain passive or silent is to be complicit to injustice and murder.
Bravo Hawkgirl, I couldn't have said it any better myself. Joe, like I have said before, blah blah blah, no one cares.
The term “terrorist” is just as subjective as the term “morality”. Each individual person will have a slightly different definition of what these terms mean to suit their own views, experiences and needs.
This is how “pie-in-face” can equal “OMG TERRORISM!!!” to some, yet indiscriminately bombing civilians is business as usual to others.
Therefor, “terrorism” has been rendered effectively meaningless in our society.
Yawn…
You need to come up with some new material, Joe.
Your shit's getting old.
Beautiful post (as always), Will.
Don't you find it interesting that you definition of terrorism is also an accurate description of U.S. foreign policy.?
And In El Salvador they murder environmentalists in full view with impunity!
from narconews.com -
“The blood from three murders has stained Salvadoran land. The murderers? They reek of gold and silver. Gustavo Marcelo Rivera, Ramiro Rivera Gómez and Dora Alicia Recinos were murdered in 2009. They were leading the opposition to metallic mining in their communities in the state of Cabañas, in northern El Salvador.
On December 26, 2009, anti-mining activist Dora Alicia Recinos Sorto was murdered in the community of Trinidad, Cabañas, when she was returning home from washing clothes in a nearby river. Eight months pregnant, she was shot five times. Her husband was José Santos, spokesperson for the Cabañas Environmental Committee.”
http://www.narconews.com/Issue64/article4083.html