CDZ Nobody has claimed ownership or responsbility

[320 Years of History]

Well, it's finally happened. Whatever terrorist organization is responsible for the attack at Ataturk has refrained from claiming responsibility. That's new. We've historically seen groups that inspired, planned and executed major terrorist attacks take credit for doing so. It tends to be petty and/or individual felons who attempt to hide behind the veil of uncertainty.

An obvious question to ask is why has nobody claimed responsibility for "Ataturk?"

• To secure a stronger position if/when someone is brought to trial?
• Because no group other than the actual perpetrators had anything to do with it?
• To avoid creating even more negative press?
• Because the attack killed people who weren't meant to be killed?
• Because the attack is viewed within the responsible group as being unsuccessful?

I don't know, but I know that not claiming responsibility for something as big as "Ataturk" is not what we've seen in the past. One thing's certain, one cannot very well make one's point if nobody knows one is person/group making it, no matter the means one uses to make it.

 

[Pogo]

Number two.

Tragically there are those who witness some terrorism wherever and think, "cool, I could do that too" --- on orders from nobody.

As in, say the Boston Marathon. Or even Columbine.
It really stretches the definition of "terrorism" if the point of the act isn't obvious, has to be figured out, and there's no fringe group behind it saying "do what we want or more of this".

When planes fly into the World Trade Center or a bomb goes off at an abortion clinic or a gay nightclub, the target makes it obvious what the message is. Blowing up random people at a street race or in an airport, not so much.

 

[turzovka]

Well, it's finally happened. Whatever terrorist organization is responsible for the attack at Ataturk has refrained from claiming responsibility. That's new. We've historically seen groups that inspired, planned and executed major terrorist attacks take credit for doing so. It tends to be petty and/or individual felons who attempt to hide behind the veil of uncertainty.

An obvious question to ask is why has nobody claimed responsibility for "Ataturk?"

• To secure a stronger position if/when someone is brought to trial?
• Because no group other than the actual perpetrators had anything to do with it?
• To avoid creating even more negative press?
• Because the attack killed people who weren't meant to be killed?
• Because the attack is viewed within the responsible group as being unsuccessful?

I don't know, but I know that not claiming responsibility for something as big as "Ataturk" is not what we've seen in the past. One thing's certain, one cannot very well make one's point if nobody knows one is person/group making it, no matter the means one uses to make it.

Maybe their objective is simply to murder and cause fear amongst the people.


Istanbul airport attack: ISIS leadership involved in planning, Turkish source says - CNN.com
'All evidence' points to ISIS
As Turkey flew flags at half-staff to observe a day of mourning Wednesday, President Recep Tayyip Erdoganproclaimed the terror attack "will not divide or split our country."

By killing dozens of civilians, including women and children, Erdogan said, the terrorists are not true Muslims.
"This is not Islamic. Taking one person's life means going straight to hell," he said. "No terrorist organization will come between what we are."
Erdogan also said the attack, which came during the final days of the holy month of Ramadan, shows the terrorists had no regard for faith or values.

Officials blamed the attack on ISIS, based in neighboring Syria.
"All information and evidence" points to that group, Ala, the interior minister, said. "But nothing is for certain."
The Islamic State has struck in Turkey before, but has rarely taken credit for those bombings.

 

[miketx]

Maybe it's terrorists, or maybe it's white USA militia members with AR-15 mega assault weapon phaser blasters that only whack homos.

 

[Pogo]

Well, it's finally happened. Whatever terrorist organization is responsible for the attack at Ataturk has refrained from claiming responsibility. That's new. We've historically seen groups that inspired, planned and executed major terrorist attacks take credit for doing so. It tends to be petty and/or individual felons who attempt to hide behind the veil of uncertainty.

An obvious question to ask is why has nobody claimed responsibility for "Ataturk?"

• To secure a stronger position if/when someone is brought to trial?
• Because no group other than the actual perpetrators had anything to do with it?
• To avoid creating even more negative press?
• Because the attack killed people who weren't meant to be killed?
• Because the attack is viewed within the responsible group as being unsuccessful?

I don't know, but I know that not claiming responsibility for something as big as "Ataturk" is not what we've seen in the past. One thing's certain, one cannot very well make one's point if nobody knows one is person/group making it, no matter the means one uses to make it.

Maybe their objective is simply to murder and cause fear amongst the people.


Istanbul airport attack: ISIS leadership involved in planning, Turkish source says - CNN.com
'All evidence' points to ISIS
As Turkey flew flags at half-staff to observe a day of mourning Wednesday, President Recep Tayyip Erdoganproclaimed the terror attack "will not divide or split our country."

By killing dozens of civilians, including women and children, Erdogan said, the terrorists are not true Muslims.
"This is not Islamic. Taking one person's life means going straight to hell," he said. "No terrorist organization will come between what we are."
Erdogan also said the attack, which came during the final days of the holy month of Ramadan, shows the terrorists had no regard for faith or values.

Officials blamed the attack on ISIS, based in neighboring Syria.
"All information and evidence" points to that group, Ala, the interior minister, said. "But nothing is for certain."
The Islamic State has struck in Turkey before, but has rarely taken credit for those bombings.

Turkey is an increasingly frequent target of violence lately, traditionally from the PKK or its offshoot TAK. Since it's faced off against DAESH that group has been hitting back too.

The three attackers were from the former USSR (Russia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgystan). I'm sure they're working on it but they'd have to trace back their histories.

Still -- as the OP notes, if nobody claims ownership, they don't make a point and it becomes at the most a general unfocused punitive stroke committed for reasons unknown. "Causing fear among the people" really has no effect if they don't know what they're fearing.

 

[Agit8r]

I suppose there is also the possibility that it was intended to create bad press for an open society in Turkey, but which would be ruined if the identity of the attackers was known. Hot quite a false flag event, but close.

 

[depotoo]

I read somewhere the other day ISIS usually will not claim responsibility in Turkey. Sorry, I don't remember the reason. But-
ISIL 'key suspect' in Istanbul's Ataturk airport attack

Well, it's finally happened. Whatever terrorist organization is responsible for the attack at Ataturk has refrained from claiming responsibility. That's new. We've historically seen groups that inspired, planned and executed major terrorist attacks take credit for doing so. It tends to be petty and/or individual felons who attempt to hide behind the veil of uncertainty.

An obvious question to ask is why has nobody claimed responsibility for "Ataturk?"

• To secure a stronger position if/when someone is brought to trial?
• Because no group other than the actual perpetrators had anything to do with it?
• To avoid creating even more negative press?
• Because the attack killed people who weren't meant to be killed?
• Because the attack is viewed within the responsible group as being unsuccessful?

I don't know, but I know that not claiming responsibility for something as big as "Ataturk" is not what we've seen in the past. One thing's certain, one cannot very well make one's point if nobody knows one is person/group making it, no matter the means one uses to make it.

 

[320 Years of History]

It really stretches the definition of "terrorism"

Off Topic:
There is no agreed upon definition of "terrorism."

• What's the definition of 'terrorism'?
  
  It's ironic -- the word "terrorism" appears constantly in newscasts, congressional debates and speeches by world leaders, often as a way of securing public support for one security measure or another. But for such a widely used word, there's actually no single definition of what "terrorism" means. There are many, and often, they're incompatible.
  
  Not only is the public confused about what to call "terrorism" -- the U.S. government is as conflicted as anyone. When Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, published the second edition of his book Inside Terrorism in 2006, he found considerable differences in how federal agencies defined terrorism.
  
  
• Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
  "There is no universal agreement regarding the definition of terrorism."
  
  
• Toward a Contemporary Definition of Terrorism
  
  "Terrorism studies point to the need for a standardized definition."
  
  
• The Meaning of Terrorism: A Philosophical Inquiry
  
  For some time now, many scholars have been engaged with understanding and defining terrorism. This engagement is reflected in the considerable amount of literature produced by them on this topic. Although this body of literature discloses important aspects of terrorism, none of it discusses directly the ‘essence’ of terrorism. The definitions provided are based on the writers’ political discourse rather than their philosophical apprehension of terrorism.
  
  
• The Revised Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism
  
  Terrorism is a contested concept. While there are many national and regional definitions, there is no universal legal definition approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations (the one proposed by the Security Council in Res. 1566 (2004) is non-binding, lacking legal authority in international law). The Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism of the 6th (legal) Committee of the General Assembly has, with some interruptions, been trying to reach a legal definition since 1972 - but in vain.
  
  In the absence of a legal definition, attempts have been made since the 1980s to reach agreement on an academic consensus definition. The latest outcome is the revised definition reprinted below. It is the result of three rounds of consultations among academics and other professionals. A description how it was arrived at can be found on pp. 39 - 98 of Alex P. Schmid (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. London and New York: Routledge, 2011. The same volume also contains 260 other definitions compiled by Joseph J. Easson and Alex P. Schmid on pp. 99 -200.

What's the consequence of society's failure to agree upon a single definition, or even agree upon multiple definitions each of which has its own contextual applicability? "Terrorism" means whatever a given writer/speaker says it means at the time s/he is speaking or in the work s/he writes at that moment.

For my part, I don't too much care what be agreed as the definition of "terrorism." I just want it to be defined so that everyone can easily and objectively look at an act and say with no shadow of doubt or room for debate, "Yes, that was/is an act of terrorism." The one thing I absolutely don't want the definition to be is something that allows one to designate as terrorism behaviors that one does not condone while also allowing one to designate as not-terrorism those acts that one does not condone. As long as it's objective, I'm willing to go with it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Maybe their objective is simply to murder and cause fear amongst the people.

??? I'm not sure why you've put forth that idea as one of "whoever's" possible objectives for not claiming responsibility for "Ataturk." Is that why you proposed what you did? If so, would you explain why, please?

The thread doesn't question whether the responsible party(s) achieved their objectives. It asks for thought about why they've not identified themselves as being responsible for the deed.

 

[Pogo]

It really stretches the definition of "terrorism"

There is no agreed upon definition of "terrorism."

• None
  
  It's ironic -- the word "terrorism" appears constantly in newscasts, congressional debates and speeches by world leaders, often as a way of securing public support for one security measure or another. But for such a widely used word, there's actually no single definition of what "terrorism" means. There are many, and often, they're incompatible.
  
  Not only is the public confused about what to call "terrorism" -- the U.S. government is as conflicted as anyone. When Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, published the second edition of his book Inside Terrorism in 2006, he found considerable differences in how federal agencies defined terrorism.
  
  
• Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
  "There is no universal agreement regarding the definition of terrorism."
  
  
• Toward a Contemporary Definition of Terrorism
  
  "Terrorism studies point to the need for a standardized definition."
  
  
• The Meaning of Terrorism: A Philosophical Inquiry
  
  For some time now, many scholars have been engaged with understanding and defining terrorism. This engagement is reflected in the considerable amount of literature produced by them on this topic. Although this body of literature discloses important aspects of terrorism, none of it discusses directly the ‘essence’ of terrorism. The definitions provided are based on the writers’ political discourse rather than their philosophical apprehension of terrorism.
  
  
• The Revised Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism
  
  Terrorism is a contested concept. While there are many national and regional definitions, there is no universal legal definition approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations (the one proposed by the Security Council in Res. 1566 (2004) is non-binding, lacking legal authority in international law). The Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism of the 6th (legal) Committee of the General Assembly has, with some interruptions, been trying to reach a legal definition since 1972 - but in vain.
  
  In the absence of a legal definition, attempts have been made since the 1980s to reach agreement on an academic consensus definition. The latest outcome is the revised definition reprinted below. It is the result of three rounds of consultations among academics and other professionals. A description how it was arrived at can be found on pp. 39 - 98 of Alex P. Schmid (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. London and New York: Routledge, 2011. The same volume also contains 260 other definitions compiled by Joseph J. Easson and Alex P. Schmid on pp. 99 -200.

What's the consequence of society's failure to agree upon a single definition, or even agree upon multiple definitions each of which has its own contextual applicability? "Terrorism" means whatever a given writer/speaker says it means at the time s/he is speaking or in the work s/he writes at that moment.

For my part, I don't too much care what be agreed as the definition of "terrorism." I just want it to be defined so that everyone can easily and objectively look at an act and say with no shadow of doubt or room for debate, "Yes, that was/is an act of terrorism." The one thing I absolutely don't want the definition to be is something that allows one to designate as terrorism behaviors that one does not condone while also allowing one to designate as not-terrorism those acts that one does not condone. As long as it's objective, I'm willing to go with it.

I don't think the definition's in doubt --- it's violence committed to effect coercion. No more complex than that. As you've correctly pointed out, if no one claims responsibility, then no one can have a coercion message.

The problem comes when it gets overused in cases where it doesn't apply (e.g. Boston), which dilutes common understanding. That's not the term's fault. The word "racism" gets the same overuse. Probably a common hazard of terms that carry heavy emotional baggage.

 

[320 Years of History]

Maybe it's terrorists, or maybe it's white USA militia members with AR-15 mega assault weapon phaser blasters that only whack homos.

Off Topic:
I suppose that's possible, but absent a claim or incontrovertible evidence, or a trial verdict, we don't know who the heck it is. The thread question is, "why having the responsible parties claimed responsibility?" The thread does not ask one to submit thoughts about who did the deed.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't think the definition's in doubt --- it's violence committed to effect coercion.

Off Topic:
Well, I suggest you get the world to accept your definition. Then everyone else also will think that's what terrorism is, and it will be "that simple."

I don't especially care for your definition because it includes an element that must be subjectively measured: intent. I want a definition that has no subjective nature; I want a definition that's 100% binary in nature. I don't know if I can have that, but it's what I want. I know too that one rarely gets that for which one does not ask.

 

[Sunni Man]

Most likely it was an Israeli Mossad operation. ......

 

[depotoo]

I want to say it was hurriyetdailynews, a Turkish news site, where I read they won't claim responsibility there for good reason.

 

[MarathonMike]

Scholars are Politically Correct Liberal dip shits. Who cares how they define Terrorism. They are sure to distort the definition in some way that makes Obama happy and paints the USA as the bad guy.

 

[DarkFury]

"
"UK Telegraph Three suspected ISIS jihadists from the former Soviet Union have been identified as being responsible for the attack on Istanbul airport, which left 43 dead and 230 injured. One of the bombers was named by officials as Chechen Osman Vadinov, who crossed into Turkey from Raqqa, the Islamic State’s stronghold in northern Syria, last month."

"
"While ISIS is yet to claim responsibility, Binali Yildirim, Turkey’s prime minister, said evidence was growing that the extremist group was behind the attack. Investigators are carrying out DNA tests on the bombers’ remains, but if confirmed it would be the first attack on foreign targets by Chechen and central Asian jihadists on behalf of the Islamic State."

"
"Neighbours have revealed the trio “spoke to no one” during their stay but were often heard arguing loudly. Security officials believe the three men are part of a cell who trained with ISIS in Raqqa within the last year."

TURKEY: Photos emerge of the three grinning Islamic State Muslim terrorists moments before they attack

 

[Pogo]

I don't think the definition's in doubt --- it's violence committed to effect coercion.

Off Topic:
Well, I suggest you get the world to accept your definition. Then everyone else also will think that's what terrorism is, and it will be "that simple."

I don't especially care for your definition because it includes an element that must be subjectively measured: intent. I want a definition that has no subjective nature; I want a definition that's 100% binary in nature. I don't know if I can have that, but it's what I want. I know too that one rarely gets that for which one does not ask.

I'm not aware that there's any doubt about the definition --- in other words I do not accept your point in post 8, at all. The fact that X number of people may overuse or misuse a term, whether "terrorism" or "liberal" or "racist" --- doesn't morph that definition into any realm of uncertainty; those misusing the term are simply "wrong".

How's that for binary?

 

[turzovka]

Maybe their objective is simply to murder and cause fear amongst the people.

??? I'm not sure why you've put forth that idea as one of "whoever's" possible objectives for not claiming responsibility for "Ataturk." Is that why you proposed what you did? If so, would you explain why, please?

The thread doesn't question whether the responsible party(s) achieved their objectives. It asks for thought about why they've not identified themselves as being responsible for the deed.

I don't think I can.

Maybe ISIS just wants to cause the govt of Turkey to look vulnerable and to be on constant guard distracting them from other motives that may harm ISIS' objectives? And causing fear amongst the population causes its own havoc.

It is a somewhat interesting question you raise, but in this day and age I do not think a group of attackers can hide their identity for long.

Turkey is complicated Islamic country and someone needs to be well educated on it to make an educated guess as to what is going on. I am not.

 

[320 Years of History]

Maybe their objective is simply to murder and cause fear amongst the people.

??? I'm not sure why you've put forth that idea as one of "whoever's" possible objectives for not claiming responsibility for "Ataturk." Is that why you proposed what you did? If so, would you explain why, please?

The thread doesn't question whether the responsible party(s) achieved their objectives. It asks for thought about why they've not identified themselves as being responsible for the deed.

I don't think I can.

Maybe ISIS just wants to cause the govt of Turkey to look vulnerable and to be on constant guard distracting them from other motives that may harm ISIS' objectives? And causing fear amongst the population causes its own havoc.

It is a somewhat interesting question you raise, but in this day and age I do not think a group of attackers can hide their identity for long.

Turkey is complicated Islamic country and someone needs to be well educated on it to make an educated guess as to what is going on. I am not.

Red:
Fair enough.

 

[320 Years of History]

It is a somewhat interesting question you raise, but in this day and age I do not think a group of attackers can hide their identity for long.

I suspect, and at the very least hope, that is true. All the same, an admission of guilt nonetheless absolves the rest of us from expending our energies and treasure to determine "who dunnit."