This will Erk You

As I posted in another thread about what I/we have known for years or knew what was going to happen to you and the American citizen/tax payer. There way much more that you will every know and the cornies are trying to cover up. None the less, until you do your own homework will be waiting to be informed. The media keeps the real news from you and usually a year or months behind.

Below is a link to a small sample of what we knew would happen when this bank was exposed or was transferred under a different name. I and others had some heated debates and discussions on the rules and regulations of this bank's policies with one chief executive of this bank. Later he bailed out before they were exposed.

http://www.thinkbigworksmall.com/mypage/archive/1/32275

This is just might be one example of why the that person drove an airplane into the IRS.

I will ry to answer as much as I can or direct you to the correct source. But I am burnt out on it. I have spent at least the last 4 years both traveling and debating the condition that we are in. Forgive me if I do not post or take a long time for me to reply. But please use this as one small example of our government at work and the silver spoon cronies running it.

Are you related to The Paladin?

Are you related to The Paladin? Originally Posted by Carl

No I'm not. Why?

This is just might be one example of why the that person drove an airplane into the IRS. Originally Posted by Trnch

Joe Stack was a terrorist - i.e., to make a political point, he killed somebody whose identity he didn't even know, much less have a personal grievance against - and no better than Timothy McVeigh (just less effective).

Joe Stack was a terrorist - i.e., to make a political point, he killed somebody whose identity he didn't even know, much less have a personal grievance against - and no better than Timothy McVeigh (just less effective). Originally Posted by chicagoboy

The person was not a terrorist, that is too easy a term, you might as well call all women HO's since many have had sexual relationships. Get my point? Lets have a dialog without the media planted seeded emotional verbiage. That is too easy.

There is a saying, "You know that you slipped and fell. Find out what caused you to slip?" With that saying, maybe we can find the underlying reason why for such actions actions.

But it was not just IRS that he had grievance with, they were a much more visual identity to point the finger at and do a grievous thing to his family and himself and others.

I have a hard time seeing this guy as a terrorist. I see a terrorist as someone who purposefully plants an unreasonable amount of fear in our society out of hatred for what we as Americans stand for.
This guy targeted the IRS because they were the source of his frustration not a symbol of what had caused his frustration. I know that's a gray area that can easily be picked apart by those of you with a better mastery of our language than I have but think about what I am trying to say.

Is a postal worker gone mad now a terrorist? What about a depressed, angry and disgruntled private sector employee who takes (revenge?) against what she sees as the people that caused her problems. Yes they do cause fear in our society, community, workplace but only to the level of "that could've been me". A terrorist wants you to believe that "I could be next".

If we continue to call every person who does something like this a terrorist it waters down what we consider terrorism to be. I haven't read the entire manifesto(I just couldn't get through it, kind of like some rants I see on here) but his comment about body counts is more of that from a frustrated lunatic than someone who is committing murder in the name of Allah with the hopes that others will follow him. Just my $.02

A couple of centuries ago, a bunch of British subjects set out to take stronger actions against their government than did Joe Stack, based upon far less egregious government abuses than we see today. BTW, we call them our founding fathers.

You called it, cb. Yep, Joe was a terrorist:

Friday, February 19, 2010 STRATFOR.COM Diary Archives
Defining Terrorism at Home

O N THURSDAY, WITHIN HOURS AFTER a Piper Cherokee PA-28-236 single engine plane crashed into the office building in Austin, Texas, that houses the local Internal Revenue Service (IRS) criminal investigation unit, federal authorities announced that the act was not terrorism. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a statement saying that they “have no reason to believe there is a nexus to terrorist activity.” We at STRATFOR disagree with this assessment, and apparently so does the U.S. government. According to USA PATRIOT Act, title VIII, section 802, terrorism is the following:
“[An] act of terrorism means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.”
The first condition was clearly met: Although the pilot is the only person confirmed dead in the attack, intentionally crashing an airplane into a building is very violent and poses a serious threat to human life. The second condition appears to have been met by an apparent suicide note dated Feb. 18, 2010 that was posted to a website by Joe Stack, the person believed to be the same Joseph Stack who crashed the plane into the building. In the note, Stack outlined his long history of troubles with the IRS and his general dislike for the U.S. government and its unfairness. In justifying his actions, he writes, “Nothing changes unless there is a body count…” He goes on to say:
“…I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be whitewashed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double-standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid, draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are…”
Finally, Stack also says in his letter, “…violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.”
This kind of rhetoric clearly matches points (i) and (ii) of the PATRIOT Act’s definition of terrorism, which call on others to act out violently to change government policy. True, it appears that Stack was acting alone, with no indications that he was linked to transnational or domestic terrorist organizations, but these conditions do not determine whether an act is defined as terrorism or not.
In this attack, removing the classification of terrorism limits authorities’ ability to investigate and prosecute its case. This does not necessarily change the course of the ensuing investigation as Stack very well may have been acting alone. However, there is a small yet significant anti-federal government minority that will agree with Stack’s motive, if not necessarily his actions. The DHS does not have the final say on how this case gets treated; the White House has yet to make a call on it, so the classification could change. But the immediate response exemplifies how terrorism in the United States is depicted inaccurately based on the popular perception of terrorism being foreign-based or linked to radical Islamists. But terrorism does not belong to any set ideology or group. It is a tactic, one that can be used by anyone to pursue any ideology.
Domestic threats are, in a way, much more challenging to deter than foreign-based threats, which must cover a vast amount of territory and pass through relatively well-protected borders to carry out an attack. In the past year, terrorist attacks at the military base in Fort Hood, Texas, and a military recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas, and attempts in New York (just to name a few) have demonstrated the effectiveness of the domestic operative to get relatively far in the preparation of an attack, and even achieve success. This poses a salient challenge to national security forces.
In fact, historically, terrorism in the United States has far more frequently been the work of domestic actors rather than foreign ones. Domestic groups such as Weather Underground, the Black Panthers and the Ku Klux Klan were the usual suspects when it came to terror attacks. This domestic hand was seen most notably — and more recently — in Timothy McVeigh and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The motivation for Thursday’s attack tracks loosely with that of the Oklahoma City bombing. It was far less damaging, but nevertheless directed squarely at the federal government, and intended to influence both the U.S. government and the American people.

A couple of centuries ago, a bunch of British subjects set out to take stronger actions against their government than did Joe Stack, based upon far less egregious government abuses than we see today. BTW, we call them our founding fathers. Originally Posted by tikkler33

The difference is that the leaders of the American Revolution had been left to govern the colonies as they saw fit, to include taxation. The British crown had relinquished control of governance and taxation, as they viewed it as too costly and cumbersome. It wasn't until after the French-Indian War, when the British crown had accumulated huge amounts of debt involved with fighting a "modern" war with a supply line that essentially stretched all the way across the Atlantic ocean, that the crown stepped in, imposed British taxes and British governance without granting seats in Parliament and supplanted the colonial government. Those were the grievances our founding fathers brought to their British rulers numerous times and eventually declared independence and went to war over, after rigorous debate and exhausting all other possibilities. To say they were pissed about paying taxes is a huge over-simplification. That would be like saying AAs fought for civil rights because they were upset about sitting in the back of the bus.

This Stark asshole is very different in many ways. First, he has always lived under the Federal regulations which allow for his taxation. This financial burden his government placed on him isn't new or onerous. He just thought he could get away without paying his taxes for decades and compounded his problem. If he'd just paid them like the rest of us do, it would have amounted to a fraction of what he earned every year, instead of the enormous debt that ruined him. Second, he has a voice in the governance of his community, i.e. -- he can vote. You don't like how much your government spends? Stop voting for democrats. Third, he never lawfully petitioned his government for redress of his grievances, at least not that I've heard so far. He just stewed about how much he hated paying taxes. And lastly, he directed his dissatisfaction and anger over his grievances toward those around him and government workers, NOT the government that was the source of his problems. He burned down his own house with his wife and daughter in it and attacked a small local office of a small branch of the government that pissed him off.

We can quibble over whether or not he's a terrorist, but he's definitely not a patriot or a hero. He's a lone nut-job who went down in flames and tried to take as many people with him as he could. That he wrote a "manifesto" and had reasons for going wacko, doesn't justify what he did. Ted Kaczynski had a manifesto too. So did Hitler and Stalin and Mao. Just because you believe you're empowered to do something, doesn't make the act good, righteous or effective. In this case, all it made Starks was deluded into believing that crashing a plane into an office building was a profound statement about the burdens of American citizenship. Speaking as another citizen who's disturbed by the direction our government, I can say it's not profound and it doesn't speak for me. It's a criminal act and it's despicable.

And people who think they're being thought-provoking or displaying keen insight by labeling this guy a patriot and a hero are just as deluded. This type of rhetoric doesn't help the conservative movement.

TERRORIST!

Definitely a terrorist.

And I don't buy the proposition that he was mentally disturbed, either. He was sane. He was able to function in society, have normal human relationships as a friend, husband and father, work as a software engineer, play in a country music band, work either as an employee or independent contractor and own and run his own business(es). He understood right and wrong. If he wanted only to be a martyr, he could have phoned in a warning to evacuate the building so he would be the only one hurt. He didn't. He didn't want to be talked out of it or be detected in advance and stopped. That indicates he understood the nature of right and wrong and where his actions fell on that continuum.

And if someone wants to accept him as a hero for his motives because they agree with their own ideas and principles but distance themselves from his actions by insisting that we was insane, how does that reflect on their position(s)? That an insane man agreed with them and found them reasonable, even to the point of claiming that defending them was the rationale for his actions?

He was a narcissistic terrorist. Two men died that day. The only one I mourn was the one that was a 22 year military veteran who served two tours of duty in Vietnam. That wasn't Joe Stack. That was Vernon Hunter.

The thing that "erks" me the most about the OP is what it says about our education system. And hell yes Joe Stark was a terrorist. A suicide bomber goes into a government building and someone tries to say he isn't?

You called it, cb. Yep, Joe was a terrorist:

Friday, February 19, 2010 STRATFOR.COM Diary Archives
Defining Terrorism at Home


“[An] act of terrorism means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.” Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

By that definition the arsonist in the heights is a terrorist. For that matter, former Atty Gen. Janet Reno and current Atty Gen. Eric Holder are terrorists.
Hell, Our founding fathers were terrorists.
Randy Weaver & company and the FBI and US marshall service were all terrorists at the Ruby Ridge fiasco.

Are the Black Panthers terrorists and kkk terrorists or just hateful assholes, gangstas and thugs?

Exactly. The Boston Tea Party was an undeniable act of "terrorism" as defined under current law.
The term "terrorist" and "terrorism" are ridiculous terms, anyway. Terror is an emotion. We shouldn't have laws against bad emotions, but against bad acts. If an act is murder, call it murder, not terrorism. If an act is an act of war, call it an act of war, not terrorism.
The Obama administration and what it is trying to do to this country "terrifies" me, so would we all agree that Obama and all of his cronies should be labeled terrorists? Once we allow an emotional term to define an act, we are subject to defining whose emotions will decide. My emotions or yours?

[/right]

By that definition the arsonist in the heights is a terrorist. For that matter, former Atty Gen. Janet Reno and current Atty Gen. Eric Holder are terrorists.
Hell, Our founding fathers were terrorists.
Randy Weaver & company and the FBI and US marshall service were all terrorists at the Ruby Ridge fiasco.

Are the Black Panthers terrorists and kkk terrorists or just hateful assholes, gangstas and thugs? Originally Posted by boardman

I, too, thinck that definition is overly broad. Terrorists and political assassins are not quite the same thing. As I said before, what IMHO makes Joe Stack, Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 hijackers terrorists is that, for political reasons and acting without any authority, they killed (and would have liked to kill even more) people whose identity they didn't even know, much less have a personal grievance against.

I disagree with the rest of what boardman posted. Is the Heights arsonist making a political point?