But what demands did he make? Who/what organization is left to receive this demands?
Definition: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
So again...a singular individual, with no ties to any organization that can continue to foster fear or violence, commits a singular act on a group does not, in my mind, constitute terrorism. We have got to be REAL careful labeling anything and everything with that term.
Now, if you said he was affiliated with the United Front of Anti-tax Citizens, a known violent organization that kills IRS/government personnel and will continue to do so, fine, but a singular person, a singular event, as an act of revenge? Nope...not terrorism.
If I am reading your words correctly, Tom, you think that an individual must be associated with a group that can carry on the mission of fostering fear or violence in order for that person's violent acts to qualify as terrorism. That's not what your own definition said, as shown above.
Let's break it down:
Definition: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence
I think flying an airplane into a building and killing people counts as unlawful use of force or violence.
by a person or an organized group
Mr. Joseph A. Stack, individual person.
against people or property
Both, in this case. The people in the building, and the building(s).
with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments
From his own diatribe: "Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer ... I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored, t
hat the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less.
I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are."
He expected his actions to provoke or coerce a knee jerk government response, that would make OTHERS "wake up" and pick up his torch and revolt.
often for ideological or political reasons.
I presume you read his statement?
EDIT: I replied to this after I read your post, but before I read the subsequent exchange between you and Scott. You don't have to answer again, I see your point, too. As with Scott, I just don't feel you can say the definition does NOT apply. Whether one chooses to apply it to a specific instance involves weighing other factors. Somebody above mentioned a mentally ill individual vs. a terrorist. My good friend, a psychiatrist, maintains that terrorists
are mentally ill individuals--they don't know how to cope with their stressors in a reasoned adult manner, thus resort to violence.
