It's a hard one to dissect. There's a lot of angles. They did have some awesome nicknames like "Y'all Qaeda," "Vanilla ISIS" & the "Talibundy" though. IMO the key reason they weren't called terrorists is because they weren't targeting civilians. They had a beef with the government and staged an armed unlawful protest. I think those guys are more accurately described as dissidents or insurgents. Maybe a little from column A and a little from column B. Either way, the distinction matters greatly because it can help us figure out what value sets we need to propagate as a species and culture. If an inordinate amount of people following a certain religion or political ideology find it a pathway or call to violence, you can probably toss that set of ideas/values in the trash bin. The hopeless and the psychopathic will always exist. It's a sheer numbers game. But it is important that we be able to distinguish violence for the sake of violence from violence in the name of an idea. One we can prevent, the other we cannot.
I think this guy is mentally disturbed rather than straight up terrorist. The language of how law enforcement viewed the "kid" is definitely debatable. It's almost as if the Police Chief empathized the bomber "as if he were his son". The nerve! https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/sympathy-for-white-austin-bomber-stirs-debate-about-race "Similarly, when Stephen Craig Paddock was identified as the gunman who rained bullets down on a Las Vegas concert last fall, the white retired accountant was characterized as a “lone wolf.” That label has also been attached to other mass killers who acted alone, including Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooter James Holmes, a white man who killed a dozen people in 2012. On the recording, Conditt “does not at all mention anything about terrorism, nor does he mention anything about hate,” Austin Police Chief Brian Manley said. “But instead, it is the outcry of a very challenged young man talking about challenges in his personal life that led him to this point.” The reaction on social media was swift. ... “Remember how they talked about innocent black children” like Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice or Freddie Gray, tweeted Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “I believe passionately in acknowledging the humanity of those who commit even terrible crimes. Reading this police chief’s empathy for this young white man highlights the awfulness — the plain awfulness — of the persistent refusal to extend this empathy to young black people,” Ifill added. Those young black males were described as “thugs” by some authorities and in popular discourse. Another case often cited is that of Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old fatally shot by a white officer in August 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. The New York Times described Brown as “no angel” in a profile, a phrase that drew an angry response from readers and was criticized by its own public editor. ... Some critics have also taken exception to media coverage that included Conditt’s friends and family describing him as nerdy and kind. “Language is always shot through with power dynamics. What this shows us is the way that we can talk about people determines how we can treat them,” said Koritha Mitchell, an associate professor in the English department at Ohio State University. “Because we are determined to treat white men as citizens no matter what, to treat them as people who belong in the fold no matter what, that is the reason we will not use words like ‘terrorist.'”
I don't believe anyone was convicted of anything behind that They just walked away virtually unscathed . . .. i doubt they even have permanent records There are dudes smoking a joint that got longer sentences Dudes shot 20 times in their own back yard with a cell phone . . . Rocket River
I stand correct - looks like the longest sentence was 3 yrs For holding a federal building for over 20 days Rocket River
"terrorism" has always has a certain definition (political and religious aims), and we shouldn't be applying to just anybody. We had 2 in Marble Falls in the past 2 weeks, called in the bombsquad from Austin in helicopters and all. One was a kid's physics project, consisting of a small cardboard box of styrofoam and popped popcorn, to test the height/cushion for not breaking an egg at various heights. He cleaned out his truck and set it next the the trashcan at a drivethru carwash, because it wouldn't fit. They shut down the streets in a 5 block radius, evacuated buildings, flew in the pros, and flew in the feds. They sent a bomb robot in to go check it out. This has nothing to do with anything, but I found it amusing. Just stand back and shoot the ****er.
A few years ago they brought in the IED disposal crew from Fort Hood to the county road leading to my Round Mountain ranch. So I'm stuck there watching. Finally I just walk up and ask what the **** is going on. "There's a suspicious item" beside the road. "Who are you?" Well my ranch is about 2 miles down this road, I'm not driving the long way around, mind if I watch the show? "Oh. Ok." I'm sitting in the truck drinking a beer, and the full suits and helmets are out there rigging an explosion to blow up the thing. Full suits, Hurt Locker style. After they did the "1-2-3 fire in the hole" BOOM routine I talked to them, asked how often they get to do this stuff in the wild. They said, "sir we do this every ****ing day at Ft. Hood, it was cool to get off-base." It was a bunch of fireworks taped together with no ignition source.
IIRC, the most last recent one here was a "package leaking a black substance" on the side of the road. Turned out to be a used oil filter.
It was a campaign to scare people. He didn't seem to have a political or religious objective though. So, it's kinda quasi terrorism. It has the psyche tactics, but no aim for coercion.
Maybe he read the definition: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331 * crime dangerous to human life * meant to intimidate or coerce a population, or to influence policy, or affect the conduct of government * Occurs within the US Seems to check those boxes.
Not really. If I murder my wife for cheating on me, the population won't be intimidated. The prospect that anyone in Austin could be the next victim created an atmosphere of fear that normal violent crime does not elicit. It could potentially be applied to some drug gangs that use violence to exert their control over their territory -- but I don't think that'd be wholly inappropriate either.
But if you had multiple wives, the population of your surviving wives would be intimidated so then it would be considered terrorism.
That's under the condition that the public knows your intentions. If you're not caught and/or never state your motive, you could be labeled a terrorist. We don't know why you murdered someone or if you'll stop there.
And yet cheating wives are murdered with some regularity without creating an atmosphere of widespread fear like what was felt in Austin during the bombings.
In my mind this was a case of straight up domestic terrorism. Just look at the levels of fear he created not just in Austin but throughout the entire state. His objective was to kill as many folks as possible and he chose a method that was designed to do both that and create as much fear and uncertainty as possible. It was the sheer randomness of his attacks that generated the most terror. Folks all over the state were calling the police whenever they encountered a box or package and that was by design - his design. I find it insulting to try to lablel this as anything but terrorism - just because the guy was white, Christian and from the suburbs does not excuse away his actions which were terroristic in design and execution. On another note, I believe that his intial decision to place the bombs in East Austin was motivated not by race but rather convenience. The area where he left the first package bombs was a poor area with virtually no home surveillance cameras and I believe that's why it was picked. It allowed him anonymity. Now what was questionable was the APD's initial response to the first bomb which was pathetic and definitely racially motivated. Three people had to die before they could get their act together and this was because of where the bombs were deployed. Had one of these gone off on Sixth Street near the SXSW events, I guarantee the APD response would have been MUCH different.
What's your point? I can still make an argument that they're all domestic terrorists by that definition.
