Hmm. If the latter is unjustified, what does that say about situations in war where civilians are killed, injured, or have their property destroyed? I'm not qu

Hmm. If the latter is unjustified, what does that say about situations in war where civilians are killed, injured, or have their property destroyed? I'm not quite equating what happened in Texas with war between sovereign states, but I do think there are some parallels in the mind of the terrorist, as well as in history and human behavior in general. If you find yourself in a violent conflict with something intangible, like a government or a bureaucracy, how do you not see the people who are working for that government or bureaucracy as being part of the problem? EDIT: I want to be very clear here. What happened to the employees at the IRS building is tragic, and they didn't have any influence on the IRS' decision-making process, or even on Stack's particular situation. Rather, what I'm trying to say is that as long as there is no way to peacefully resolve disputes in situations like this, to the satisfaction of both parties, then what happened is to be expected and will continue to happen. (Remember Tim McVeigh? He had some of the same complaints...) So, what happened must prompt a quick response in the form of reforms of the IRS, specifically in dispute management and resolution, and I think that every article that handwaves Stack's terrorism as being the actions of "a wacko", "a nut", or "unjustified", weakens the case for those reforms.