It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Thoughts on the Austin plane crash counterattack

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 03:17 PM
Some first thoughts about this.

For those slow on the uptake: the top 10% or so of the country are actively at war with the rest of us. They wage this war with the tools they understand and are comfortable with, i.e., finance, fraud, and suborning government.

Every day, every minute of every day, we, the 90% against whom they fight take casualties. Every person who dies of homelessness, starvation, lack of medical care is a victim of the 10%. Every person who loses their job to outsourcing, every person conned out of their home because the governments didn't perform their regulatory duties with due diligence is a casualty of this war.

Lest you think I exaggerate I offer this recent Frontline presentation of PBS. The Congress was specifically warned about the dangers and probable course of the derivative markets and stripped the regulator who had the nerve and power to actually regulate that market of her ability to do so, at the behest of Greenspan, Geithner, Bernanke, Paulson, Rubin..those names sound familiar?...on the grounds that regulating derivatives would collapse the economy...again, sound familiar? She resigned after that.

I look around at the state of the country and realize that this war shifted from a theoretical war of idealogies fought in the political arena to a shooting war fought in the financial economy sometime in the eighties, probably in Reagan's second term after he lost his mind and the shadow government (Nancy, Bush Sr., et al) could use him as a genuine puppet. The S&L meltdown of the eighties was an early attack for financing, followed by the manufactured bubbles leading us to where we are today.

If you look at at things like the Contra , S&L, .com, real estate, Enron, 9/11 and other scandals, the War on Drugs, and War on Terror as isolated, unconnected incidents each could more or less plausibly be passed off as a one-off incident. But when you look at them as a collective and realize how often the same names come up as directly or indirectly involved a pattern of behavior emerges, and the direction that each of the incidents pushed the social and legal dynamic, and where it should have pushed it , but didn't, then Ian Fleming's proverb seems glaringly obvious in hindsight:

"Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times is enemy action."

After reading his manifesto, I conclude that he connected the dots, realized the truth of the the premise I've offered above, and accepted the responsibilty the conclusion demanded of a true patriot. Thus his one-man counterattack, hoping to provide a spark to his fellow citizens.

Before condemning his actions, I will ask you how often you've railed at the "sheeple" too complacent and ignorant to do something to strike back at those who are so clearly against us. Whatever else you might think, the man was certainly not that.

Before protesting against the loss or harming of "innocents", I suggest you review the history of war. Things have reached a point where you have to make a choice: either you accept the fact that in any kind of war people will die, be maimed, and deprived of property "innocent" and guilty alike, or you try to fight a war without hurting anyone. Pragmatists will go with the first choice, the sheeple the second. No war is fought but there are casualties. Mostly though, the casualties presently are all being taken by the 90%.

He understood and accepted his duty as he saw it. That is why I refer to his action as a counterattack.

I respect that.

The people working in the IRS can't be considered innocent by any stretch of the imagination. How many taxpayers did they ruin by their varying intepretations of the same tax codes? Did they work with and for the taxpayers to minimize the amounts owed or did they work for the political parties in office to maximize the amount extracted from the taxpayers? That is their direct guilt. If you choose to work for someone who is waging war on someone else, then you are a legitimate target. That is their indirect guilt. War sucks, if you don't want casualties, don't start one.

Still processing the implications of this, but those are my first thoughts.

edit to add links

[edit on 18-2-2010 by apacheman]

[edit on 18-2-2010 by apacheman]

posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 04:45 PM
After reading through some of the other threads on this subject, I confess to being disappointed, impressed, and hopeful to varying degrees.

I'm disappointed the quality of the arguments against his actions, especially by those who agree his arguments and reasoning was fairly rational, cogent and true. What else could he do that would be as effective as what he did? Anyone engaged in a war arguing about the sanctity of innocent lives is delusional and most likely going to lose as long the other side doesn't care. There is a time and place for that, but not while the war is active. If you disagree with his actions, provide a logically supportable alternative. I see none, myself; I've spent countless hours fruitlessly "communicating" with "my" elected officials, an utter waste of time and resources. Elections are more often rigged than not, so what other options for effective and timely change do you offer?

He reminds me of the Buddhist monk who set himself afire to protest the Vietnam War. I grant that the monk only hurt himself, but after all, Stack wasn't a monk. But both made points that ultimately couldn't be ignored. The monk inspired others to copy him. I'm certain that Stack will too, there's plenty of dry tinder for his spark to ignite.

I'm impressed with the pragmatic acceptance of necessity that many posters have exhibited. It is a crucially important step in creating change. Sooner or later, theory must be placed in action and tested. The country will not last much longer without seriously deep changes.

I'm hopeful that critical mass will be achieved soon, and our necessary deep changes with occur as peacefully as those of the USSR and the Hungary. People inevitably die during revolutions, no matter how peaceful they are. If Stack's actions result in a better ground for change to occur, then his sacrifice will have been worth it.

posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by apacheman

nice post I agree

Joseph Stack an American hero. Expect more of the same as the out of control american government is reined in

From One end of the country to the other people are tired of a government out of control..

Illegal taxes

confiscating peoples money

forced health care

The lie about global warmer to further fleece the american people.

The list goes on and on.

expect more common Joe's to react and resist a government out of control.

posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 05:11 PM
You know, I heard what happened and I hated the man. Then I read his "suicide note" of sorts. I find myself torn. I completely agree with his words, he made 100% valid arguments on several fronts.

Then there is the fact that he put innocent lives in harms way. Lives of people who where living in the same country with the same govt he was. Toiling with the crisis that is the United States.

I just don't know what to think to be honest.

What I do know is TPTB will never let this man be seen as anything but a terrorist by the public. It would be too hard for them to keep control if he is seen as anything but.

The most convincing evidence of this Crucifixion is that they are saying he tried to kill his family by setting the house on fire right before this. His family says different. I am more inclined to believe his wife and daughter.

Politicians want unarmed peasants after all....

[edit on 18-2-2010 by DaMod]

posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 05:37 PM
Despite years of attempts by churches, governments and political organizations to encourage denial, more people are realizing that Western society has for the last few hundred years been founded upon a negative principle, one in which the individual is placed above reality. This behavior, a form of cognitive dissonance, is common in human situations where authority is required but is inconvenient of the majority of people, most of whom cannot think ahead more than two weeks and so will gladly consume today what they will need in the future, and then blame others.

The great philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, who pointed out that without a connection to some shared ideal that is greater than the individual, human societies collapse into individualism -- a fancy word for "selfishness." Societies that decline tend to become more unstable and less reliable, while they drive to suicide anyone who can see the error of their path, and eventually devolve into third-world republics with average IQs of 89-94 points and no interesting future at all.

Revolutions do not create lasting changes, but break down consensus among people and return us to the lowest common denominator. We saw it in Soviet Russia where people became greedy and used the system for individual preferences, and we saw it in France where the Democratic revolution ended in mass-slaughter of most intelligent people; today we see it in the formation of a political system that is killing our people, our cultures, and nature. This is not freedom.

No one is going to save the world in a lifetime, so we need to look at our communities and help each other out as best as we can. Produce something of worth to someone other than yourself.

posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 07:46 PM
reply to post by DaMod

" You know, I heard what happened and I hated the man. Then I read his "suicide note" of sorts. I find myself torn. I completely agree with his words, he made 100% valid arguments on several fronts. "

Whenever I hear or read stories in the news like this one I have to ask myself a question . Is this story deliberately meant to get an emotional response out of me simply by the way it is reported ? Can't I just remain indifferent to it if I feel it is just a ploy used to condition me to Care either way ? If I never heard of any of these types of stories in the news in the first place , do I think my life would become alot less simpler along with being less stressful and depressing ? Yes to all I would have to say . Sometimes it is better for people to personally just ignore the things that others try to do in manipulating all of us . Having said that , I feel bad for Mr. Stack , and hope his remainig family members can get pass their grief over this sad event .

posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:02 PM
I found the media debate on whether or not this qualifies as domestic terrorism strangely skewed, although I sympathize with the difficulty they have in framing it.

On the one hand, if you call it domestic terrorism, you're somewhat forced to explain what motivated him and look for broader links. If you go that way, the links lead back to Washington's dismissal of the depth of the economic problems they and the banksters have created. The man had a large number of valid points that no one in Washington wants to either discuss or address.

On the other hand, if you use the lone, crazy guy theme, everything in his life points him up as a prototypical American entrepreneurial type, and again the story leads back to failures of the government and capitalist system. Watch this story die an immediate death: it raises too many issues no one wants to deal with, exposes too many lies and fantasies for what they are.

Sadly, instead of sparking genuine debate over the realities facing us, his sacrifice will be demeaned and diminished in a desperate attempt to buy a few more months of illusionary good times for the top 10%. Unfortunately for them, a dynamic is shaping up that historically meant the demise of the the ruling classes, if history follows its normal course, bloodshed will increase over the spring and summer.

It's such a shame that those on top never seem either to read history or understand it's dynamics. They always seem to have to learn the hard way, and they usually wind up dead in the process.

posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by apacheman

apacheman, I think I hear what you are saying, and in large measure I agree with your analysis of what is going wrong in this country.

There is no doubt in my mind that Stack's act was a defiantly political one.

The question is what, exactly, would Stack's revolution look like if he succeeded in starting one?

As you point out, about 90% of the population are oppressed, whether they fully realize it or not. But that 90% include millions of people, and those millions are by no means unified in what they believe in or would fight for. Some would fight to put curbs on the excesses of capitalism or to replace it altogether with something like socialism, and others would fight to take all restraints off capitalism and allow it to run rampant. Some would fight for complete anarchy.

Some would want to create their idea of what a Christian nation should be. Some would fight to destroy all central government and leave only what they believe is strictly stated in the Constitution. Some would want a strong central government but one more responsive to the will of "the people" (who or what they are would also be in dispute). Some would want to revert to vigilante justice and others would want a nation of laws. Some would fight to restore our nation to their fantasy of what our forefathers were like and others would fight in the name of progress and science. Some would imagine themselves part of a future ruling class and others would imagine a utopia of peace and equality. Some would fight to be part of a new government. Some would fight for a dictator. Some would fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

And there are a hundred other differences and factions which presently divide, and will continue to divide, our people.

Many revolutions break down into different revolutionary factions fighting each other. The Russian revolution certainly did. An American one surely would, if it were to happen tomorrow.

In short, there would be the kind of revolution Timothy McVeigh wanted to start when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, and the kind of revolution you or I might imagine.

I myself would be hard pressed to choose a side, because I would tend to find fault with all of them. And then, of course, there will be people who would want to put an end to people like me, who tend to intellectualize things.

Again, what kind of revolution would Stack start, and who would the leaders be?

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Sestias]

new topics

top topics


log in