Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) in the interview above seemed to be reacting to the quick association between the Austin airplane bomber, Joseph Stack, and Conservatives (including the Tea Party Protesters) who are opposed to excessive taxation. And he is correct that to associate the two is grossly unfair.
In response to your speculations, above, your waiting is over: An article from the
Wall Street Journal (in part provided below) states, "...the incident meets the definition of terrorism: a politically motivated attack on civilians."
Of course Stack engaged in a domestic terrorist act (blowing up a building with his airplane in a suicide attack to make a “political” statement). But rather than playing word games, people are more interested in the substance (as in the case with other recent cases of domestic terrorist acts).
The key questions, in this regard, are:
1. Was he acting alone? Or was his action coordinated in any way with others?
2. From what ideology did he gain his inspiration? Was he in regular, rare, or any contact with proponents of this ideology? (If his acts were in fact inspired by any coherent ideology, rather than motivated out of some personal rage against the IRS).
3. Was he active in any movement that advocates violence against the United States Government or its citizens? In the past, did he openly express sympathy for those who engage in such violence?
4. Were there any warning signs, in terms of what he communicated to co-workers, friends or family? In terms of what he previously posted on his websites?
5. Could anything have been done to prevent his murderous act?
My understanding is that Stack acted alone, without coordination, without prior open suggestion that he would engage in such an act. He penned a muddled manifesto that was as much Leftist as Rightist (causing some of the Right to characterize him as a radical Leftist, though that too is unfair). In truth, his "thinking" reflected a more personal insanity and rage than a coherent ideology I’ve not heard of any past meaningful activism on his part. It is doubtful that with such persons, with no warning signs and no conspiratorial contacts, that much can be done to prevent such incidents in the future. In some ways his act is similar to that of Fort Hood shooter, for example, but in some ways quite different (as in that case, issues of political correctness apparently induced the Army to not take proper measures in advance where there were clear warning signs; the guy should have been removed from his position as a Major long before he initiated his Fort Hood attack).
If more info has come to light that I’m unaware of, feel free to share. But from what I’ve seen of this, it appears Stack was just nuts.
Touching on some of these points, here is the article from the
Wall Street Journal that addresses the issue of Media Bias -- the Media's immediate jumping to conclusions to serve a liberal/left ideological end to negatively stigmatize those who legitimately dissent against the policies of the current Administration:
Pot Calls Kettle Stack
The Austin attack and the media's stereotypes.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703787304575075610490995030.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinionBy JAMES TARANTO
"A software engineer with an anti-government grudge crashed his single-engine plane into an office building that housed nearly 200 Internal Revenue Service employees," FoxNews.com reports. Joseph Stack, 53, killed one IRS man, 67-year-old Vernon Hunter, along with himself.
Inevitably a debate has arisen over whether the attack was an act of terrorism. Fox notes that Art Acevado, police chief of Austin, Texas, where the attack occurred, "labeled the incident a single act by a lone individual and refused to classify it as terrorism":
But at least one lawmaker, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, disagreed and compared the incident to the 1995 bombing that killed 168 people in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
The White House dodged the question:
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters aboard Air Force One that White House officials will let an investigation "play out" before determining how to label the incident. He had earlier said that the incident did not appear to be terrorism, and when asked specifically if domestic terrorism was a possibility, he said he did not suspect ''somebody like an Al Qaeda.''
Arguing that it was terrorism was the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which issued a press release:
[CAIR] called the apparent airborne suicide attack on an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office in Austin, Texas, an act of "terror."
"Before taking off in the light plane that he allegedly used to attack the IRS office, Joseph A. Stack reportedly set fire to his own home and posted an anti-government screed on the Internet that was signed "Joe Stack (1956-2010)." . . .
"Whenever an individual or group attacks civilians in order to make a political statement, that is an act of terror," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. "Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the faith, race or ethnicity of the perpetrator or the victims. We pray for the speedy recovery of those injured in the attack." . . ."
Awad noted that if a Muslim had carried out the IRS attack, it would have surely been labeled an act of terrorism.
That's odd. Why would CAIR think a Muslim would do something like this? The question is facetious, of course: CAIR is understandably defensive about the stereotyping of Muslims as terrorists, or terrorists as Muslims. Such stereotyping is also understandable, since the last time terrorists flew planes into buildings, they were Muslims who claimed a religious motive. One can hardly fault CAIR for pointing out that the Stack attack runs counter to the stereotype, although expressly citing the stereotype in the process undercuts the message.
In any case, CAIR is right that the incident meets the definition of terrorism: a politically motivated attack on civilians. When people say it wasn't terrorism, what they probably mean to say is that it wasn't an act of organized terrorism or war. Had the attacker been Muslim and left a screed against "infidels," it would have been reasonable to suspect that he was part of al Qaeda or some other enemy group, or at least that he was influenced by its ideology. That he was apparently a lone nut instead is a great relief not only to CAIR but to anyone who worries about attacks by America's enemies.
Some in the media were quick to engage in stereotyping--but not against Muslims:
Jonathan Capeheart of the Washington Post wrote: "After reading [Stack's] 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we're hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement." Chris Rovzar of New York magazine added: "A lot of his rhetoric could have been taken directly from a handwritten sign at a tea party rally." National Review's Steve Spruiell notes two other tea-party references that have since been edited out. Time magazine: "Toward the end of what appears to be his final note, Stack wrote, 'Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.' (See the making of the Tea Party movement.)" This one, from the New York Times, is especially clever: “In April 1990, a firebomb packed with a tea bag--a reference to the Boston Tea Party--and addressed to the I.R.S. was placed in the mail in Royal Oak, Mich. It exploded, injuring a postal worker.”
A look at the actual screed, however, shows that in many ways it runs counter to the stereotype of a right-wing nut. Yes, Stack's biggest grievance was against the IRS. But his complaint here is very specific and not ideological: He says he was adversely affected by the agency's enforcement of a tax-code provision titled "Treatment of Certain Technical Personnel."
He does, however, rail in more general terms against corporate "thugs and plunderers," "the joke that we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies," "the vulgar, corrupt Catholic church," and "the recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies"--left-wing bogeymen all. His closing line is:
“The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”When the more over-the-top tea partiers call Obama a communist, they do not mean it as a term of approbation.
Our purpose in pointing all this out is to dispel a stereotype, not to reinforce one, so let's be clear: Stack is in no way typical of left-wingers either. But the eagerness with which journalists rushed to link him with the tea-party movement suggests that they are invidiously biased against dissenters from the current U.S. government. That's a stereotype of the media that turns out to have a good deal of truth.
