Who are they kidding? "Radical Anti-tax Groups Growing Threat, Say Law Enforcement"

[Partsproduction]

We live in a constitutional republic governed by laws. If Stack wanted to ignore the laws and live in anarchy, perhaps Somalia would have been a better option.

Which doesn't excuse the government for continuous theft from the American people over the last century of income tax. We should always remember that the US government is the enemy of the Constitution and free people.

 

[pogi]

You have to have to make Stack just plain nuts first, and anthing else second. He seems just another angry guy who was only capable of seeing himself as a blameless victim of the government, corporations, the unjust playing field, and maybe even sunspots! What was lacking in his character was an ability to take responsibilty for his life and not blame something else for his failures. And based on the many of the posts I've read on this forum, this is a lesson many of us should learn something from.

This forum is filled with angry, vague posts that do not much differ from sections of this dead maniacs manifesto.

This is rich coming from a Progressive.

 

[Gunner3456]

Which doesn't excuse the government for continuous theft

How can it be called theft when it's constitutionally allowed?

from the American people over the last century of income tax.

Since 1913, and the states and the congress passed and approved it.

We should always remember that the US government is the enemy of the Constitution and free people.

Enemy of the constitution how in this case? The income tax is constitutional.

So you won't let go of the "two wrongs make a right" argument?

I agree that our government is out of hand, but I contend we have to change it at the polls.

 

[gunnoob75]

I read a definition of terrorism versus freedom fighter the other day. It came down to the freedom fighter engages soldiers to further his cause and the terrorist engages civilians to further his. When that gentleman flew his plane into the building, he engaged civilians to further his cause. That's why I elevated him to the level of terrorism.

I dunno. On one hand I know that people working for the IRS are just doing their jobs.

But, they're still the IRS. Let's pretend that there was a war between this man and the IRS; Those working for the IRS would be soldiers.

I have no dog in this fight, though. On one hand, I think all we have left are drastic measures. Do I think flying a plane into the building was the right one? No. He could have at least called first, said he was going to do it, and allowed people to get out of the building.

But we, by the constitution, are allowed to declare war on our government when the time is needed. This man thought the time was needed, that's all.

 

[PhysicsGuy]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

 

[PhysicsGuy]

But we, by the constitution, are allowed to declare war on our government when the time is needed. This man thought the time was needed, that's all.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of the Declaration of Independence?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[gunnoob75]

That too.

Or Yes.

I don't quite know.

 

[rider]

I had a problem with the IRS back in the late 80's. I worked for a company that had 1 owner. I was a owner operator truck driver, this company owed me 11.980.00 and skipped town with my money and never paid me. then reported to the IRS that he had paid me, the following year the IRS took my tax return check. The next 18 months we argued back and forth they keeped saying "just start paying your taxes and we'll look into it" Long story short I was not paying taxes on money I was never paid. "not only did the company rip me off now the IRS wanted rip me again. So one day I get a letter from that the IRS is going to levey my belongings. I called again. once again the said for the 20th time "just start paying and we'll look into it" My response was you have had 2 years to look into it, and you've done nothing. So I told them if you come here for my stuff you better have a gun in your hand becouse your not stealing any more from me. This was the seattle office. The next day I got a call from an agent from portlands local office. We went through the whole thing again. This agent said I can help you fix this we have a person in our office who will help you with this, and I can stop the leveing of your stuff. But I need to know that your not going to do anything to any of our agents. I told him I never wanted it to come to this, but I felt like I had no other recourse after 2 years. In 3 weeks they found the and cought him doing the same thing to someone else in Ohio. Because it was over 2 years the employer got out of paying me, but the IRS paid me my back tax check with interest. My point is that it never should have come to that, and they were right and everyone else is in the wrong execpt the IRS. I hope no one ever has to go through what our family went through, but it is more common than anyone thinks. What this guy did is along the lines of tim mcvay, killing inicent people.

 

[MountainBear]

I dunno. On one hand I know that people working for the IRS are just doing their jobs.

But, they're still the IRS. Let's pretend that there was a war between this man and the IRS; Those working for the IRS would be soldiers.

I have no dog in this fight, though. On one hand, I think all we have left are drastic measures. Do I think flying a plane into the building was the right one? No. He could have at least called first, said he was going to do it, and allowed people to get out of the building.

But we, by the constitution, are allowed to declare war on our government when the time is needed. This man thought the time was needed, that's all.

There were other people in the building other than the IRS. The other people in the building were what, collateral damage? No, even supposing we call the IRS employees soldiers, they weren't the only people in the building, so he went after civilians, whether or not he intended to...

 

[Partsproduction]

How can it be called theft when it's constitutionally allowed?

Because it was supposed to be a temporary tax.

Remember this next time the government tries to enforce any laws against anyone, they are the last institution on earth that has any moral right to look down on any citizen, the US government is filled with liars of the lowest possible sort, most people in jails are better than those in government that lie and steal from us.

An example; The government says it's OK to lie to a subject during interrogation, but if the subject lies to them then that's somehow different. I guess they feel like they have the corner on the lying and stealing market and cannot stand any competition. But you know, really, no one steals and lies on the massive scale of the US government, they have no real competition.

They make the rest of us subject to widespread cynicism.

 

[OcelotZ3]

I hold that terrorism can be committed only by a group.

Hmm. By that definition, the anthrax guy wasn't committing terrorism. And neither was the Unabomber.

From Wikipedia:

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

I would agree with the statement that the pilot wasn't a terrorist, but because it was a lone, isolated attack, not that it was done by a single person.

 

[Gunner3456]

Hmm. By that definition, the anthrax guy wasn't committing terrorism. And neither was the Unabomber.

From Wikipedia:

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

I would agree with the statement that the pilot wasn't a terrorist, but because it was a lone, isolated attack, not that it was done by a single person.

Good point and I agree. It has to be continuing and meant to coerce, but not necessarily by a group. I hadn't thought of those people. Thanks for the added thoughts.

 

[TAT2D]

And pool, cause people drown...

Ooh, caught me off guard there. I thought you were going to finish that with "...cause people are always taking cue-balls in the crotch on 'Stupid Home Videos.'

MrB

 

[MountainBear]

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Doesn't the definition of terrorism you posted pretty much describe what the pilot did? He perpetrated a violent act (crashing a plane into a building) intended to create fear (after 9/11, how do you think people react to a plane flying into a building) that he perpetrated for a specific ideological goal (reformation of the US tax code) and deliberately disregarded the safety of non-combatants (if you care to define the IRS staff as combatants, that still leaves janitorial and secretarial staff, those in the building not working for the IRS, as they didn't occupy the entire building, and the first-responders who came to the scene).
I don't think it needs to be a string of attacks to qualify as terrorism.

 

[OcelotZ3]

You skipped explaining away the "lone attack" part of the definition.

Terrorism is meant to provoke a long-term fear of *more* attacks from the act(s).

 

[Gunner3456]

Doesn't the definition of terrorism you posted pretty much describe what the pilot did? He perpetrated a violent act (crashing a plane into a building) intended to create fear (after 9/11, how do you think people react to a plane flying into a building) that he perpetrated for a specific ideological goal (reformation of the US tax code) and deliberately disregarded the safety of non-combatants (if you care to define the IRS staff as combatants, that still leaves janitorial and secretarial staff, those in the building not working for the IRS, as they didn't occupy the entire building, and the first-responders who came to the scene).
I don't think it needs to be a string of attacks to qualify as terrorism.

I think we're splitting hairs. We have terrorists and we have those who are simply murderers, even mass murderers. In order to be terrorists, they need a mechanism by which to let you know that they have a system which will give you "more where that came from." There's the "terror."

A lone suicide killer who's not part of a group and/or conspiracy doesn't invoke "terror" as in terrorism. He's just a dead murderer. It's over.

 

[MountainBear]

I think we're splitting hairs. We have terrorists and we have those who are simply murderers, even mass murderers. In order to be terrorists, they need a mechanism by which to let you know that they have a system which will give you "more where that came from." There's the "terror."

A lone suicide killer who's not part of a group and/or conspiracy doesn't invoke "terror" as in terrorism. He's just a dead murderer. It's over.

We hope. Of course if his intent was to set an example for others who share his radical ideas, then he is trying to cause more attacks in the future. After all, he did write a manifesto to share.
But splitting hairs it is. He's dead. Hopefully there will be no more attacks.

 

[Karma]

Comparing our current situation to the situation our grandparents went through in the great depression isn't quite right in my opinion. I do agree that there were a much higher percentage of self sufficient people in that day, but there are some huge differences also.

People are getting really pissed off, because a lot of the problems we are facing are due to our own government. Things have gotten out of hand entirely. The government dictates pretty much anything you do. They have raised taxes to the point where people can't hardly survive anymore. If you aren't working for the government or a union, you are a second class citizen. They have just about completely killed the small businesses that have been the backbone of the US, and they are working hard to finish them off.

Another difference is that our grandparents could live differently back in those days. Try to buy a cheap piece of farmland, throw a barrel in the ground with a couple of leach lines, and toss up a house cheap these days. You can't do anything cheap anymore. The government has everything taxed, and or regulated to the point people can't have simplicity in life.

People are stressed and strained and many are ready to explode. I believe the feds as well as a good few states are playing a very dangerous game right now.

Of course I am not saying this guy did the right thing. If the problem is the government, going and endangering the lives of others and all that is not the answer. I am just saying that if the government doesn't recognize that there is a reason people are becoming anti-government, there is going to be a lot bigger problems in the future.

 

[willseeker]

We hope. Of course if his intent was to set an example for others who share his radical ideas, then he is trying to cause more attacks in the future. After all, he did write a manifesto to share.
But splitting hairs it is. He's dead. Hopefully there will be no more attacks.

There's a lot riding on 'hope' Mountainbear. I had envisioned the start to have been someone in front of Wall Street with an automatic firearm. Regardless, the insanity has begun. Do any of you really believe this murder to have been commited solely of ones deranged mind? Hmmm. Are we all not watching the same reality?

My sincere condolances go out to all victims of this muderous act. There aren't words to describe the pain these families must be going through.

Yes, Partsproduction they lie, but then what government doesn't?

Those of you fortunate enough to have made good, financially et al, in this great country of ours, you cannot possibly understand this mans anguish. For those facing foreclosure, taxes, unemployment, medical bills, utility bills, food bills and...yes, I know you have the same bills, the IRS can seem like a sanctioned mafia. Like you Mountainbear, I hope this to have been an isolated incident, but I don't believe so.

Will

 

[Gunner3456]

Comparing our current situation to the situation our grandparents went through in the great depression isn't quite right in my opinion. I do agree that there were a much higher percentage of self sufficient people in that day, but there are some huge differences also.

People are getting really pissed off, because a lot of the problems we are facing are due to our own government. Things have gotten out of hand entirely. The government dictates pretty much anything you do. They have raised taxes to the point where people can't hardly survive anymore. If you aren't working for the government or a union, you are a second class citizen. They have just about completely killed the small businesses that have been the backbone of the US, and they are working hard to finish them off.

Another difference is that our grandparents could live differently back in those days. Try to buy a cheap piece of farmland, throw a barrel in the ground with a couple of leach lines, and toss up a house cheap these days. You can't do anything cheap anymore. The government has everything taxed, and or regulated to the point people can't have simplicity in life.

People are stressed and strained and many are ready to explode. I believe the feds as well as a good few states are playing a very dangerous game right now.

Of course I am not saying this guy did the right thing. If the problem is the government, going and endangering the lives of others and all that is not the answer. I am just saying that if the government doesn't recognize that there is a reason people are becoming anti-government, there is going to be a lot bigger problems in the future.

I can't argue with that. Things need to change. They have to change.