US contractor attacks IRS. With his 'plane

[LegendsWear7]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ing-Texas.html

He should have vented his spleen on here and let it all out.

Never worked in the States but isn't a contractor there on less money than a perm ? A mate was a contractor for eBay in Silicon Valley and was working crazy hours hoping they would offer him a regular staff job for higher income and the health package.

[NotAllThere]

I knew a guy who last year was essentially implementing global support after a takeover, for the princely sum of $40 per hour. It would have been higher, but he took the lower rate for some of the employee benefits - health care and stuff like that.

[realityhack]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ing-Texas.html

He should have vented his spleen on here and let it all out.

A possible lurker? His suicide note is based upon Threaded's signature:

'I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different,' it said. 'I am finally ready to stop this insanity.
'Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.'

Edit: Yes, it is rather parochial of me to pick up on that, but it was worth mentioning.

[Clippy]

Officials at the US Department of Homeland Security said it was a 'deliberate criminal act' and that Mr Stack was the registered owner of the plane.

Why is this not classified as an act of terrorism ala 9/11?

In both scenarios, the motive of the perpetrators was to inflict (maximum) damage to the intended target.

(BTW, I am seriously asking).

Edit: Thinking about it, in 9/11, perhaps the act of hijacking the planes was the act of terrorism whereas the act of flying them into the twin towers was a criminal act?

[AtW]

In both scenarios, the motive of the perpetrators was to inflict (maximum) damage to the intended target.

Light aircraft can't inflict maximum damage.

[NickFitz]

Why is this not classified as an act of terrorism ala 9/11?

In both scenarios, the motive of the perpetrators was to inflict (maximum) damage to the intended target.

(BTW, I am seriously asking).

Edit: Thinking about it, in 9/11, perhaps the act of hijacking the planes was the act of terrorism whereas the act of flying them into the twin towers was a criminal act?

An act of terrorism is a criminal act.

[Clippy]

An act of terrorism is a criminal act.

So, it's a reporting issue?

i.e 9/11 was/is widely reported from an 'act of terrorism' perspective whereas an incident such as this is being reported from a 'criminal act' perspective.

Just struck me that whenever 9/11 was reported, don't recall it being described as a criminal act.

Thanks for clarifying.

[d000hg]

Is one person being pissed off to the point of violence classed as terrorism? Don't terrorists have to have some claimed political/religious/social motivation which drives their actions?

[AtW]

The purpose of terrorists is to kill other in order to terrorise and force into submission for their goals.

That guy does not fit this definition.

[Sockpuppet]

The purpose of terrorists is to kill other in order to terrorise and force into submission for their goals.

That guy does not fit this definition.

Unless his goal was a tax rebate.