Andrew Joseph Stack III, apparently partially motivated by a hatred of the IRS, crashed his plane into an Austin building. This incident has been officially classified as a criminal act rather than a terrorist attack. However, some have contended that this is a case ofconservative terrorism. While this incident is a terrible one, it does raise the issue of what counts as terrorism.
From a purely cynical standpoint, it could be claimed that the label of terrorism is applied as a matter of politics. Acts are declared terrorists acts so as to gain some sort of political game piece to be played for an advantage. For example, the underwear bomber is a terrorist because this enables the Republicans to claim that a terrorist attack occurred on Obama’s watch. In this current case, neither the Republicans nor Democrats can gain a political point by calling this incident terrorism and so they do not label it as such.
However, there seems to be a matter worth discussing here that is beyond mere political rhetoric.
One plausible view of terrorism is that it is the intentional use of force on to create fear and this is done on the basis of ideological motivations. To distinguish this from standard police and military actions, it can be added that the force is aimed at civilian targets or at the very least disregards the civilian/combatant distinction. Of course, the concept is one that is rather heavily debated and, as such, this can hardly be considered a definitive and non-controversial account. However, it does seem to have intuitive appeal. This definition does seem to nicely capture paradigm cases of terrorism, such as the 9/11 attack.
Using this definition, Stack’s attack would seem to be terrorism. After all, he seems to have been clearly motivated by ideological factors (combined, of course, with various personal issues) and he used violence against civilians. The parallels to 9/11 are quite clear, even down to the use of a plane as the weapon.
Of course, Stack’s attack has been presented as a criminal act rather than an act of terrorism. This raises the obvious question of what distinguishes Stack’s attack from a terrorist act.
One factor that might be pointed to is that Stack is an American and this makes his act a criminal act rather than a terrorist act. However, this does not seem to be enough to change the nature of the act from being an act to terror to a mere criminal act. After all, there can be internal acts of terror committed between citizens. For example, the bombings in Iraq by Iraqis are considered to be terrorist acts as were the acts of the IRA in Ireland.
Another factor is that Stack seems to have acted as an individual without any supporting group that trained or at least helped guide him towards his act. It is generally accepted that terrorism is a systematic process that requires a group or organization. Obviously there can are criminal organizations that commit violent acts to advance their goals. However, these are usually distinguished from terrorist groups by their motivations. That is, criminal groups often create fear to make money while terrorist groups often commit crimes to make money to fund terrorist attacks so as to advance their ideology. Of course, the line between terrorist groups and criminal groups is often a blurry one-especially in cases involving large scale drug trafficking.
If terrorism is defined in a way that makes it a group thing, then Stack’s attack would not count as a terrorist attack. This view does have some plausibility as shown by a comparison to war.
If I organize and launch an attack against my neighbors and take over their house, then I am a criminal. If my country organizes and launches an attack against another country, then this is war and not (on the face of it) a criminal act. Perhaps terrorism works the same way. To use a metaphor, perhaps terrorism and war are team sports so that an individual cannot play those games by himself.
So, while Stack was motivated by ideological factors and used violence against civilians, the fact that he acted alone would entail that he was a criminal and not a terrorist. If he had, however, some links (however tenuous) to the right sort of group, then he could be classified as a terrorist.
As noted above, there have been some arguments that Stack was a terrorist on this basis. The general case is that he was actually part of a group with a definite ideology and hence this provides him with the necessary context for being a terrorist. The weak point in this argument is that the group that Stack is supposed to be associated with is a rather vague one, namely people who dislike the government and the IRS. Taking such tenuous group membership is taken as an adequate basis to define a person who commits violence as a terrorist seems to make the definition of “terrorist” rather broad. After all, anyone who does not dwell in complete isolation will have some sort of association with some people who have some sort of ideological views. The challenge here is, of course, to work out what sort of relation a person would need to have to what sort of group to make that person a terrorist rather than a criminal.
It is, of course, tempting to take the view that “terrorist” is primarily a political label that is placed to serve the political ends of the person applying the label. So, for example, a person might be labeled a terrorist so that he can be interrogated with enhanced techniques, assassinated or jailed without due process. Or someone might declare a “war on terror” so as to use it as a political tool to reshape laws and how they are applied. A lone person who crashes a plane into a building simply doesn’t provide a useful political game piece and hence is labeled as a criminal rather than a terrorist.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=564247b4-032b-4243-a62c-6a8743826fb9)
I don’t see the need to restrict the term to foreigners. The Oklahoma bombing of the federal building I think is agreed to have been an act of terrorism, and it was an American who carried it out. Also,the person who sent bombs through the mail acted alone and was also considered terrorizing, so I wouldn’t limit terrorism to a group thing.
But I do think in Stack’s case, it being an individual and a one time deal throws question on applying the term terrorist to him.
Or, maybe it has more to do with who fear is being inspired by, and the care for civilian casualties? Specifically, his act will not cause fear in the general citizenry, but the group that he was trying to give a reason to fear the actions of others is the government itself. A bus bombing makes everyone wonder if it can strike them, a specifically-engineered attack on a government institution does not. Likewise, this might be why the twin towers receive so much attention, but people almost take the attack against the Pentagon in stride.
Likewise, as with the bus bombing attack, and the reason that his attack would not give the general citizenry reason to fear is because he did, specifically, target a government institution. While there is no way to minimize calateral damage, and while the workers inside may not have been soldiers, they were government employees, and not public-sector employees.
Not trying to minimize it, just some thoughts.
Good example; when we have a thing or a happening that falls between two family resemblances, what is a reasoned method for moving the case into one or the other group? The cited event is like an act of terrorism; so why call it ‘criminal’?
I think it matters; at least at law where a different name makes a difference as to what added protection, investigation, imprisonment, court… blah, blah are called into play. Perhaps the call will be post-post-…-modern-arbitrary, or is there a ground on reason may stand?
Hope you don’t mind an afterthought. Obviously, terrorism derives its name because an act of terrorism is supposed to create terror that the act can and probably will be repeated in some form or other. In Stack’s case his crashing the plane into the building caused a lot of grief but not terror of a possible repetition. Ergo, I don’t think it can be called an act of terrorism.
I think it is more interesting to examine the use of language to demonize or marginalize people or actions (as opposed to discussing which label to apply). “Collateral damage” is an example of the latter while “terrorism” is the former. Events are effect from cause, how does labeling in such a way help? That is not rhetorical, put another way: How might labeling them in such a way contribute to the problem?
Terrorism is an act of murder against non-combatants for the purpose of political gain. It is an act to terrify the people to pressure their government for change in return for their own safety. This man killed for simple revenge against percieved wrongs by government agents. No terrorism as such but vengeance. That is the difference.
He was misguided by his anger. He was angry at our government for good reason. They are out of control and suffer from a media induced disconnect with the American people. They need correcting, but by other methods. Killing them will not cure our problem.
Here’s our problem…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LubuSAgB5s
…and there ain’t a cure.
“it is the intentional use of force on to create fear and this is done on the basis of ideological motivations. To distinguish this from standard police and military actions, it can be added that the force is aimed at civilian targets or at the very least disregards the civilian/combatant distinction.”
– This is pretty much my own definition. But terrorism seems to have become more about a means of gaining attention than a means to demoralize the enemy.
Christer,
True. Terrorism today is largely media focused, in that they try to do what will maximize press coverage.
it is my view that chicken farmers raise chickens. beef farmers raise beef. and governments raise taxpayers. i wish i was wrong.
currently, terrorism is synonymus with muslims
Fire (spark) is reaction, produced by friction of two substances in negative and positive (opposite) directions. Fire seeks help of substance for its extension. It is the substance that helps fire to become furious. So intensity of fire depends on power of substances. Revolution (spark) is creation of reaction from Governments and the living citizens. Intensity of revolution depends on the strength of despressed people. Revolution may be classified in two categories (1) Peaceful as organized by Anna Hazare and Ram Dev in India during August 2011 or Gandhi or Nelson. Though requires lot of sacrifice can sympathetic attention of entire world. This revolution is to melt heart of opposite side that caused pain to citizens. Most effective method that pulls mob to address the strength to opposite side (2) violent revolution organized by some sects to hurt opposite side to give pain, after sometimes people too become opposite to revolution. The opposite side reacts strongly to foil by using stronger force gains momentum from own and world population. This type of revolution mainly results due to anger, as recently we experienced in many parts of Europe. Where young boiled blood experience mistreated due to unemployment, escalated living cost, poverty, racial discrimination, and etc.
Each Government must understand the responsibility towards own population. Old age systems have changed; Present violence is indication of despondency. Now they want elected members to be in touch with them understand their pain and issues. World over crisis are worsening and may explode any time. World young is stressed and getting violent as experienced in UK and Spain or other parts. Change old age decayed constitutions to match present population. Always keep in touch with who voted, seek their views so can solve, this way feel they are involved would minimize despondency among its population.