Austin Plane Crash – Intentional Act or Terrorism?

February 19, 2010

  • February 19, 2010 at 1:42 am
    Donald S. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    He had money to buy a plane, a 2500 sq. ft home in Austin but he could not pay a $ 1200.00 in taxes to keep his business. And he took it out on a governmental entity that Americans where employed at. He could have sold the plane and purchase a different one paid his taxes and keep life rolling but instead he chose to enact massive damage and casualties. I am sorrow for his wife and children however; I feel that he is no better than those that struck New York. Because that where he got the idea from. He was a terrorist, no better than Timothy James McVeigh, Theodore John Kaczynski, John Allen Muhammad or any other extremist. I love my country and they did not. Because if they did than they would really consider the consequences of the premeditated actions. If you hate America than you have the choice to vote, start a grass roots movement, there is other ways of getting your point across and you can always leave. In his case he could have flown away. Deeply disturbed or not he was a terrorist and there are other options than terrorism. He knew that he would not survive the crash because if he did he would be tried and sentence as a terrorist. In Texas we have the death plenty, it is public, and severs a deterrent so events like the one in Austin do not occur.

  • February 19, 2010 at 1:49 am
    Homer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “In Texas we have the death plenty, it is public, and severs a deterrent so events like the one in Austin do not occur.”

    Austin is IN Texas, so there goes that theory…

  • February 19, 2010 at 2:22 am
    phyllis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Me thinks Donald S. attended public school in Austin.

  • February 19, 2010 at 2:36 am
    Rick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Below is an excerpt of the definition of terorism as typcially defined by exclusionary language. Very likely this act is within the intent of this language………””Terrorism” means activities against persons, organizations or property of any nature:
    a. The effect is to intimidate or coerce a government or the civilian population or any segment thereof, or to disrupt any segment of the economy; or
    b. It appears that the intent is to intimidate or coerce a government, or to further political, ideological, religious, social or economic objectives…….”
    A lot of folks may think, “hey that’s ok I bought the “terrorism coverage”……Out of luck as the TRIA language contains the following requirement (among much more)……”The act is …committed by an individual or individuals acting on behalf of any foreign person or foreign interest…….”

    In other words the politician whom is beating his chest with the terrorism rhetoric is potentially helping seal the no coverage fate of all those whom have suffered damage.

  • February 19, 2010 at 2:42 am
    Ratemaker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    methinks Phyllis and Homer can’t read. Donald says the pilot made sure he would not survive the attack so as not to be tried and sentenced as a terrorist.

  • February 19, 2010 at 3:07 am
    Earl says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is Texas and Bush is from Texas.

  • February 19, 2010 at 3:17 am
    bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The term “act of terrorism” is defined in the act as: any act certified by the Secretary of Treasury, in concurrence with the Secretary of State and Attorney General, to be an act that is dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure and to have resulted in damage within the U.S. (or outside the U.S. in the case of a U.S.-flagged vessel), or on the premises of a U.S. mission.

    In the 2002 version, the act of terrorism was defined to have been committed by individual(s) acting on behalf of a foreign person or foreign interest as part of an effort to coerce the U.S. population or government. In the 2007 reauthorization the definition was broadened to include acts by persons with no foreign affiliation.[1]

    Losses from the act must exceed $50 million in 2006 — up from the original $5 million trigger. In 2007, that trigger rose to $100 million.

  • February 19, 2010 at 3:20 am
    Rick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    And to seal the deal, Bush often flew and still flies on airplanes. Definately a conspiracy.

  • February 19, 2010 at 4:55 am
    Admit it all of you says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You just miss Rosie!!

  • March 6, 2010 at 4:28 am
    blank says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    TERRORISM IS an INTENTIONAL ACT..



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*