Comments:Plane crashes into office block in Austin, Texas
Read it. It is enlightening.
An account of how a life was completely ruined and destroyed by The System. His philosophy is anti-tax anti-government individualism, and simultaneously anti-capitalist socialism.
- We have that locally at Plane crashes into office block in Austin, Texas/suicide note so no need to leave Wikinews for these details. --SVTCobra 02:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|A Joe Stack of errors||3||01:23, 23 February 2010|
|The "patriot" killed||2||09:09, 21 February 2010|
|Patriot, or terrorist?||17||02:09, 21 February 2010|
In his note, Stark had excellent style but very horrible reasoning. Stack just took life as a joke. Also, he seemed to want change but provide nothing as to his idea of a better nation or a lack of a nation. Coming in first for both style and lack of explanation is his statement, "…violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer." I understand that he tried other methods of getting "something" done, but whatever he wanted, I fail to see how crashing an airplane into an office building would help. Besides, he still had moving from the United States to try.
I do not see his reasoning very wrong. I am saddened by the number of people who condemn him while they have either not read or not fully understood the key contents of the manifesto. What he wanted is equality and justice. His main point is that the government should not help the wealthy (big corporations, the Church) in times of hardship and totally ignore the poor.
He is not even anti-tax. The particular tax code he highlighted is not imposing taxes on him. It is a tax on any company that would hire him, and as a result most companies specifically refuse to do business with the type of business he is running. What is more, that tax code is not even providing any extra revenue for the government, but who refuse to repeal it because they find the process too complicated.
He tried peaceful method and no one listened. By crashing his plane into a building his voice is finally heard, and I think it is likely that the law will be repealed as a result. If it doesn't happen, people who suffer from the law would resent the government even more than before.
Either way, Stack will have achieved by violence more than he ever had by peace.
The only thing he achieved was getting a few people to read his rant ... and contrary to your belief he was anti-tax. In a democracy, if yelling at the government doesn't work, you talk to your fellow citizens until there are enough of you to change the government. You don't fucking start killing people who happen to have taken a meager job working for the government.
An army veteran. http://www.kgan.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/3ada52d6-www.kgan.com.shtml --KDP3 (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I think he was a tea partier more or less, even though some of his opinions were left of Tea Party standard. That being said, this is what happens when a movement goes around preaching revolution - they wind up with the nuts taking them too literally. :-/
100% Patriot. He died because of the completely unintelligible tax code. There should be a bronze statue of him right in front of the IRS complex in Washington D.C. - so that every IRS employee going to work that day pass by his statue.
By definition, terrorist. He did cause terror to IRS employees and he did cause deaths.
Speaking of which, it annoys me when the gov't goes around saying "this wasn't an act of terrorism" about acts that are clearly terrorism. It wasn't an act of "foreign terrorism" nor "Islamic terrorism" but - for fuck's sake - yes, it was an act of terrorism. It was meant to instill fear in people ... aka terrorize them. --SVTCobra 03:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The government's saying it's not terrorism!? That effing stupid. Look it up in Wiktionary or Webster's. Isn't this "domestic terrorism" or whatever it's called.
- The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
- Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
How does this not fit the definition. Isolated act? It seems there already was a copycat act in Calif. (then again I'm not sure of the circumstances as the suspect was carted off from LAX to San Diego.)
You are right. Here's a youtube of same. In their defense, they are trying to convey that it is not another 9/11. However, isn't it time we grow the fuck up and realize that Osama bin-Laden isn't the only terrorist in the world.
I'd be pretty fucking terrified (oh there's that word again!) if some guy flew a plane into a nearby government office such as the courthouse where I'm at. I remember being freaked out by the idea the 9/11 occurred.
And to quote a YouTuber, "What planet does this tyrannt live on.There is more danger from patriots than muslims."
Think back to the woman's suffragettes of England. Those women broke window as an example. If that's not terrorism, the what is? I think it is a "furtherance of a political or social agenda."
I don't know about the "There is more danger from patriots than muslims" bit, but I think perhaps we should roll back women's suffrage. It seems that we were terrorized into accepting that.
Well, that was a bit much. Naw, if the were rolled-back there'd more woman suffragettes and history doesn't need to repeat itself there. (On a side note, woman's fight for suffrage was featured as the opener of Mary Poppins methinks.)
Ahah! You've let the terrorists win! You are no longer willing to fight because you think there will be more of them. Mary Poppins be damned! ;-)
Really it's what history tells me what is right.
But super-radicalist things like this guy did aren't going to be made into a G-rated (General Audiences for the UKers) family film.
He held an honest belief, albeit wrongly, that he was taking the best course of action for the greater good - with the exception of the attempted murders of his family, which I think are being overlooked here. He was standing up for what he believed in.
His method was to try and kill, maim and destroy, preferably spectacularly, in a manner designed to shock onlookers. His aim was to bring fear to the authorities.
By the way, the US may well have a legal definition of terrorism. It's that sort of place. That may be more or less restrictive than the dictionary definition. If so, the government would be correct to say that it was not an act of terrorism, provided that was the definition they were referring to.