Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-IRS Rant of Software Engineer who Today Flew Plane into IRS Building

embeddedart.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 218 posts

Re: Anti-IRS Rant of Software Engineer who Today Flew Plane into IRS Building

#181

Post by grandalf »

pyre wrote: post #175
grandalf wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State So an attack designed to destroy an unoccupied building would not be terrorism under the structure you describe above.

I think that the law would still hold detonating a bomb in an unoccupied building as 'dangerous to human life' if you didn't follow all of the safety precautions that a real building demolition would have to follow. If you put a bomb in an abandoned building at set to detonate in 2 hours and then flee the scene, there's not guarantee that someone won't enter the building in the interim.

You could make that same argument about someone driving above the speed limit...

Re: Anti-IRS Rant of Software Engineer who Today Flew Plane into IRS Building

#182

Post by pyre »

grandalf wrote: post #181
pyre wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the law would still hold detonating a bomb in an unoccupied building as 'dangerous to human life' if you didn't follow all of the safety precautions that a real building demolition would have to follow. If you put a bomb in an abandoned building at set to detonate in 2 hours and then flee the scene, there's not guarantee that someone won't enter the building in the interim.

You could make that same argument about someone driving above the speed limit...

How many people are breaking the speed limit in an effort to 'coerce the civilian popular and/or US government policy?'

Re: Anti-IRS Rant of Software Engineer who Today Flew Plane into IRS Building

#183

Post by alanstorm »

pyre wrote: post #176
alanstorm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most common definition of is usually along the lines of the one I found on google [ http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&#38... ]. > Terrorism is the use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something. This was a single, possibly mentally unstable, man crashing a plane into a building. He may have thought he was trying to ach…

So which organization was behind the Oklahoma City bombing?

The militia movement in rural parts of the US, which the federal government more or less neutered after the bombing.

Re: Anti-IRS Rant of Software Engineer who Today Flew Plane into IRS Building

#184

Post by alanstorm »

scott_s wrote: post #63
alanstorm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most common definition of is usually along the lines of the one I found on google [ http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&#38... ]. > Terrorism is the use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something. This was a single, possibly mentally unstable, man crashing a plane into a building. He may have thought he was trying to ach…

That definition says nothing about the perpetrator needing to be a part of an organization. If his act meets the definition - which I think it clearly does - then we have to call it terrorism.

I can see your point of view here, but if you're trying to "achieve political aims or to force a government to do something" it's implicit that there's going to be people around after your death to push your agenda, (or that you're going to survive whatever you plan is) to push it forward.

Re: Anti-IRS Rant of Software Engineer who Today Flew Plane into IRS Building

#185

Post by binspace »

cookiecaper wrote: post #169
saturnine wrote: post #130

I surmise his software ventures never succeeded because he hated the IRS more than he loved programming. In 1987 alone, he says, he spent at least 1000 hours railing against the tax code -- about 20 hours a week. His obsession with, and resentment of, the IRS started when he and others tried to create their own religious organization, ostensibly to draw attention to the capricious laws exempting religious organizatio…

So what do people respond well to? I'm not seeing any changes even though the guy's sentiments are shared by many.

A conflict of some type is necessary to bring in change. The people who benefit from the tax code will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo. Luke warm sentiment will not change things.

Re: Anti-IRS Rant of Software Engineer who Today Flew Plane into IRS Building

#186

Post by binspace »

ovi256 wrote: post #148
gills wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labeling him a terrorist draws attention to his message.

This is it, government cannot accord him any attention overtly. Therefore, no labeling as terrorist.

His message is actually pretty valid and he has a similar situation to many Americans.

Re: Anti-IRS Rant of Software Engineer who Today Flew Plane into IRS Building

#187

Post by CulturalNgineer »

I can't justify his method of protest but have some understanding of his frustration...

In behavioral economics there's the game called the "Ultimatum Game"

Essentially it's when one side thinks the deal is so biased and unfair he'd rather tip over the board and have both get nothing than accept what he considers to be a rip-off offer.

This guy decided to tip over the board...

There's another concept in communication called "no acknowledgement"... which arise when you are trying to get someone's attention and they just don't seem to notice you're there... which causes people to essentially start pulling their hair out with frustration.

SO...

It makes sense for politicians to be very nervous about citizen anger over perceived favoritism to the wealthy... and feeling like they're not being listened to.

This isn't political conclusion...

It's a scientific one!

Re: Anti-IRS Rant of Software Engineer who Today Flew Plane into IRS Building

#188

Post by tlb »

markpercival wrote: post #7

The site was pulled down, here's the copy of the rant: If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Need…

If you can't live with the IRS or other parts of the US system, there are 194 other countries out there. Many of them are good places for English speakers to live and work. Vote with your feet, not with violence against helpless government workers.

Re: Anti-IRS Rant of Software Engineer who Today Flew Plane into IRS Building

#189

Post by cagey »

wheels wrote: post #54
blackguardx wrote: post #16

The Department of Homeland Security released a statement calling this a criminal act, not terrorism. I am confused. A few years ago everything was considered terrorism and now nothing is. This guy wasn't targeting individual people in the IRS, he was targeting the whole establishment. This is akin to the Oklahoma City bombing. If that was a terrorist incident and 9/11 was a terrorist incident, this is too. He even ha…

You, sir, have obviously failed to memo that in this post-9/11-world, only brown people are terrorists. Here's a key, in case it gets confusing again: - Guy in an airport with a Koran and an accent: terrorist. - White software developer who flies a plane into buildings for ideological reasons: not terrorist.

_Brown_ Islamist soldier who kills 13 soldiers and wounds 30 at Fort Hood: _not_ a terrorist!

Re: Anti-IRS Rant of Software Engineer who Today Flew Plane into IRS Building

#190

Post by grandalf »

pyre wrote: post #182
grandalf wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could make that same argument about someone driving above the speed limit...

How many people are breaking the speed limit in an effort to 'coerce the civilian popular and/or US government policy?'

That's not my point, my point is just that the logical structure attributed to the definition is not accurate.

The definition does not state that all of the clauses must be satisfied for something to qualify as terrorism, and as I showed above, satisfying a single clause is trivial (and clearly not terrorism).

Post reply on HN