Last year, I wrote an article the day after the first Tea Party "Tax Day" events took place. In it, I discussed two previous attacks upon the Internal Revenue Service which happened in 1991. While I wasn't trying to equate the Tea Partiers with the group which executed the attacks (one failed truck bombing, and one largely ineffective mortar attack on an I.R.S. processing facility in Fresno, California), but I would be willing to bet that these attacks will soon be dug out by a few of the better-researched journalists in the mainstream media, to provide historical background for today's suicidal air assault on an I.R.S. building in Austin, Texas.

Back then, I wrote:

But, in my mind, home-grown violent extremists shouldn't really be labeled on a "left/right" axis. They should be labeled on more of a "harmless crank/dangerously violent madman" scale. Because the idea of taking out an I.R.S. office doesn't really seem to me to be part of any sort of overarching political philosophy. It could occur to any dangerously unbalanced individual, on either side of the political spectrum.

I finished the article by saying:

So I am in no way equating what happened yesterday [the "Tax Day" Tea Party protest] with what happened back in the early 1990s. But I do wish that someone in the media would remember that the I.R.S. has been previously attacked -- using the same tactics that McVeigh used, as well as a mortar attack seemingly designed to kill I.R.S. employees.

I don't enjoy filling out my taxes any more than the next guy or gal. It's a pain. And I'm not always happy about what my taxes are being used for, either. But I encourage everyone -- left, right, and center -- to keep their perspective about the situation. I don't hate I.R.S. workers, they're just doing a job like anyone else. I strongly condemn anyone who would advocate violence against any of them. I would hope that is something everyone -- from Tea Party folks to the folks ridiculing them -- could agree upon.

Now, I wasn't trying to be prophetic. And neither am I suggesting today that the Tea Parties had anything to do with the "lone wolf" attack which happened today. Let's get both of those straight at the beginning, here.

And I still strongly believe that attacking the I.R.S. is not a left/right "partisan" issue. I think it is the result of a very angry, and mentally-unstable individual -- no matter what his personal politics may be. If you actually read his manifesto, he doesn't even really touch on partisan political issues in any meaningful way, although he is quite specific over his perceived grievances with the I.R.S.

This sad event has also given rise to a nonsensical debate over whether he's a "terrorist" or not. This debate is easily answered, for all sides -- it depends on how you, personally, define "terrorist" or "terrorism."

Terrorism is broadly seen as the taking of innocent lives (or the threat to do so) to advance a political agenda. But when you get into specifics, people disagree. Was the London Blitz terrorism? Yes and no. Yes, because it most certainly caused terror in the populace and was indiscriminate bombing (the buzz bombs weren't very accurate). But also no, because England and Germany were at war at the time. You can define terrorism so broadly it would include just about every bomb dropped in every war. But war is supposed to be a different category than terrorism.

This debate is complicated and intense among those who believe certain acts fall either on the "terrorism" side of things or the "war" side of things. The question of how to prosecute Khalid Sheik Mohammed is a good example of this. But also thrown in the mix are things like the military psychiatrist's rampage on a military base, or even the Taliban's suicide bombing of a military base in Afghanistan.

When at war, some things are considered valid military targets, and some aren't. Valid military targets are allowed to be attacked. Which is why taking out C.I.A. agents on a military base in Afghanistan is certainly horrendous, but simply not terrorism.

You also get into the question of whether we're at war or not. Al Qaeda thought it was at war with the United States, but even if you grant them this, the World Trade Center was an attack on a civilian target, whereas the Pentagon was not. It gets complicated. The psychiatrist attacked a military target, but we weren't exactly at war with him, so it's a grey area.

Likewise, the I.R.S. is a governmental agency, but also a civilian (as opposed to military) one. Meaning it simply doesn't qualify as a valid military target, even for cranks who don't like filling their taxes out.

By this definition, at least, the Austin plane attack was indeed terrorism.

Some soften the term by listing such attacks as just happened in Austin, and the Timothy McVeigh truck bombing in Oklahoma City as "domestic terrorism" (to differentiate it from "international terrorism"). But it's a meaningless splitting of hairs if you're in an office building and a plane is heading your way. You don't care at that point who exactly is flying the plane, only what effect it's going to have upon you.

As I said, I consider the debate itself fairly ridiculous. If you want to label it "terrorism," that's fine with me. If you want to call it "domestic terrorism" or "criminal" or "murderous" or "not terrorism," that's also fine with me. I assume you have your own definitions of what the words mean to you, and consider it on the same level as debating whether the people displaced by Hurricane Katrina were "refugees" or not. No matter what word is used, the facts remain the same.

There will also be much speculation -- as there always is -- over what "warning signs" were missed, and "how this could have been prevented" in the media in the next few days. This assumes a basic falsehood, though, that most Americans prefer to believe rather than face facts -- that all such attacks are inherently "preventable," as long as systems are in place to watch for danger signals. This is just false, I am sorry to say. People can get "future shock" at any time, and even people who would qualify as completely sane can be pushed over the edge into irrational self-destructive acts. It happens every day, and sometimes there just aren't any warning signs to see.

Even when there are warning signs, though, there's another hard fact which Americans have largely refused to face up to as well -- suicide attacks are the hardest to defend against, and even the best security in the world can sometimes be penetrated by someone who is willing to die in the attempt. From Kamikazes in World War II to September 11 to suicide bombings in the Middle East to today's airborne attack in Austin, it is simply impossible to prevent all such attacks, all the time. No matter how much time, energy, and money you spend in the effort to do so.

This column is rather tangential to the actual attack today, I realize. I'm skirting the edges of the incident itself, because I don't think the incident is truly explainable (though many will doubtlessly spend a lot of time trying in the next few days). I don't think it was a political act, and therefore I don't think any group or groups is in any way "responsible." I think anyone who tries to make it a political issue is likely doing so to advance their own selfish agenda (thankfully, I haven't heard anything of this nature yet, but it's still early days...).

The only proper response to such an action is to resoundingly condemn it for a murderously insane action by one warped individual. That, even in these divided political times, should be the thing everyone can strongly agree upon -- Democrats, Republicans, Lefties, Righties, Centrists, Tea Partiers, Progressives, Libertarians, and all other factions as well.

Speaking as an American, and not as any of these in specific, I do condemn this barbaric attack in the strongest possible way. The I.R.S. doesn't make the tax laws, they only enforce them. The people who work for the I.R.S. are citizens just doing a civil service job. They do not deserve the public's anger, and they do not deserve to be targets for violence. Whether by pipe bomb or by suicidal airplane attack, they deserve the right to life and liberty that everyone else in this country does. Again, I think we can all agree on that, at the very least.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant