What defines an act as "terrorism"? Was the act in Boston terrorism?

[Circe]

The Wall Street Journal today has a lead editorial noting with disapproval that both the Boston police commissioner and Pres. Obama have avoided calling the bombing of the Boston Marathon "terrorism."

Well, why don't they? What possibility are they holding open, that it was a crime by a crazy who built him some bombs like school shooters go killing? Is that NOT terrorism? Under what circumstances can we call this terrorism, and what not? What about Fort Hood? "Workplace violence" or terrorism? I thought workplace violence was about some crazy guy mad at his ex, comes in all loaded down with guns to shoot her and whoever else gets in the way. But the Fort Hood guy was Muslim and yelled Muslim things and was very political, so why isn't that terrorism?

I am very confused about this issue of what is terrorism and what isn't. On a larger scale, it came up on 9/11: what is an act of war, and how do you tell if it should be called something lesser? A lot of people wanted to call 9/11 a criminal act, or "just" terrorism.

I also don't know what terrorism is FOR. Why do people constantly set off bombs in Baghdad markets? Why does that seem like a GOOD idea? I don't know what terrorists are trying to accomplish. When terrorists set off bombs in the London subway --- what were they hoping to GET?

 

[martybegan]

The Wall Street Journal today has a lead editorial noting with disapproval that both the Boston police commissioner and Pres. Obama have avoided calling the bombing of the Boston Marathon "terrorism."

Well, why don't they? What possibility are they holding open, that it was a crime by a crazy who built him some bombs like school shooters go killing? Is that NOT terrorism? Under what circumstances can we call this terrorism, and what not? What about Fort Hood? "Workplace violence" or terrorism? I thought workplace violence was about some crazy guy mad at his ex, comes in all loaded down with guns to shoot her and whoever else gets in the way. But the Fort Hood guy was Muslim and yelled Muslim things and was very political, so why isn't that terrorism?

I am very confused about this issue of what is terrorism and what isn't. On a larger scale, it came up on 9/11: what is an act of war, and how do you tell if it should be called something lesser? A lot of people wanted to call 9/11 a criminal act, or "just" terrorism.

I also don't know what terrorism is FOR. Why do people constantly set off bombs in Baghdad markets? Why does that seem like a GOOD idea? I don't know what terrorists are trying to accomplish. When terrorists set off bombs in the London subway --- what were they hoping to GET?

To me there has to be three components.

1. A political or religious motivation
2. The Target has to be civillians
3. The perpetrators have to be civillians.

Without the political or religious motivation, what you have is a madman if it is done for ha-ha's. In other cases there is usually a monetary motivation.

Without the targets being civillians you have an act of war.

Without the perpetrators being civillians what you have is war crimes.

Terrorism is a low level method of conflict where the objective is to wear down your opponent through attacks on civillian population and infrastructure, in the hope that your opponent will get weary of the conflict, and give in/leave.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Correct,. W/o knowing the perpetrators or the motive, you cannot call it terrorism.

 

[Pop23]

The Wall Street Journal today has a lead editorial noting with disapproval that both the Boston police commissioner and Pres. Obama have avoided calling the bombing of the Boston Marathon "terrorism."

Well, why don't they? What possibility are they holding open, that it was a crime by a crazy who built him some bombs like school shooters go killing? Is that NOT terrorism? Under what circumstances can we call this terrorism, and what not? What about Fort Hood? "Workplace violence" or terrorism? I thought workplace violence was about some crazy guy mad at his ex, comes in all loaded down with guns to shoot her and whoever else gets in the way. But the Fort Hood guy was Muslim and yelled Muslim things and was very political, so why isn't that terrorism?

I am very confused about this issue of what is terrorism and what isn't. On a larger scale, it came up on 9/11: what is an act of war, and how do you tell if it should be called something lesser? A lot of people wanted to call 9/11 a criminal act, or "just" terrorism.

I also don't know what terrorism is FOR. Why do people constantly set off bombs in Baghdad markets? Why does that seem like a GOOD idea? I don't know what terrorists are trying to accomplish. When terrorists set off bombs in the London subway --- what were they hoping to GET?

To me there has to be three components.

1. A political or religious motivation
2. The Target has to be civillians
3. The perpetrators have to be civillians.

Without the political or religious motivation, what you have is a madman if it is done for ha-ha's. In other cases there is usually a monetary motivation.

Without the targets being civillians you have an act of war.

Without the perpetrators being civillians what you have is war crimes.

Terrorism is a low level method of conflict where the objective is to wear down your opponent through attacks on civillian population and infrastructure, in the hope that your opponent will get weary of the conflict, and give in/leave.

Not in total agreement when we speak of an act of terrorism.

A soldier might well commit a war crime that is an act of terrorism, as could a madman. Civilians are a key component. It seems to me that simply an act that inflicts terror on the general civilian population could be an act of terrorism. Even a madman will normally have, what he would consider a rational reason for commiting the crime.

On base, I think you are correct, to label this an act of terrorism without knowing the "whys" or "whos" seems both premature in one sense of the word, and obvious in another.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As far as I can see, "terrorism" is defined as something so scary that we won't bother questioning anything, and instead just go off and kill some brown people.

 

[Circe]

As far as I can see, "terrorism" is defined as something so scary that we won't bother questioning anything, and instead just go off and kill some brown people.

Unhelpful.

The previous post by Pop23 is more useful on this confusing issue, that attack on civilians is key to the definition.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As far as I can see, "terrorism" is defined as something so scary that we won't bother questioning anything, and instead just go off and kill some brown people.

Unhelpful.

The previous post by Pop23 is more useful on this confusing issue, that attack on civilians is key to the definition.

The fact that everyone defines "terrorism" as something different makes the term completely meaningless in any objective sense.

 

[AmyNation]

Dictionary.com says its an act of violence meant to intimidate or coerce, typically politically motivated.

I mostly agree with Marty. I think in order for it to be terrorism it has to have several key components. Not knowing who the bomber is yet, means we don't know if its terrorism yet.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Terrorism is like porn...



.................................Different people will have different definitions...



...................................................But we all know it when we see it.




>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Dictionary.com says its an act of violence meant to intimidate or coerce, typically politically motivated.

I mostly agree with Marty. I think in order for it to be terrorism it has to have several key components. Not knowing who the bomber is yet, means we don't know if its terrorism yet.

I suppose it could have been an ill concieved, poorly executed murder plot, but that does not sound reasonable to me.

The word terrorism is one thing, but I think the phrase "act of terrorism" means something different.

 

[Circe]

Dictionary.com says its an act of violence meant to intimidate or coerce, typically politically motivated.

I mostly agree with Marty. I think in order for it to be terrorism it has to have several key components. Not knowing who the bomber is yet, means we don't know if its terrorism yet.

I wish I understood its POINT. I never have, not even historically with the anarchists of the last century.

Someone told me that it's about low-level attacks meant to discourage a controlling power and get them to leave, but that sounds like guerilla war in Afghanistan, not terrorism.

The Muslims might like us to leave America, but I don't suppose they think we will! So that can't be the point.

If there is a point. I'm not sure where terrorism starts and psychosis leaves off. Some of those anarchists did kill presidents and prime ministers in the 19th century, but some of them were just as crazy as hoot owls -- I've seen photos. Glowing eyes, wild smiles, not well men.

 

[AmyNation]

Would you define the sandy hook shooting as terrorism?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Thanks for this thread, I was wondering the same thing myself.

To me, terrorism is done by zealots (political, religious), is done in the name of something with the goal to kill or harm/maim as many innocents as possible vs. say an Adam Lanza, who was mentally unstable but who wanted to kill those he thought had wronged him somehow. To me, Lanza wanted them dead, not hurt/maimed; terrorists are good with both death and maiming. I also don't believe that terrorists are mentally unstable but rather that they truly 'believe' in the 'cause' of what they are doing.

I still don't know if this was terrorism or not. Seems like it but I don't think we'll know until arrests are made.

 

[Circe]

Would you define the sandy hook shooting as terrorism?

No...........no political point.

Private motivations, psychotic.

 

[Circe]

Thanks for this thread, I was wondering the same thing myself.

To me, terrorism is done by zealots (political, religious), is done in the name of something with the goal to kill or harm/maim as many innocents as possible vs. say an Adam Lanza, who was mentally unstable but who wanted to kill those he thought had wronged him somehow. To me, Lanza wanted them dead, not hurt/maimed; terrorists are good with both death and maiming. I also don't believe that terrorists are mentally unstable but rather that they truly 'believe' in the 'cause' of what they are doing.

Do you have any idea what the goal could be of killing lots of civilians in the name of Allah, say, if that's the case? What good does it do their cause?

I know what guerrilla warfare is for: to drive off a superior power by constant draining small attacks when your forces can't face them openly.

But what is the function of an attack like the one on Boston? Or Fort Hood?

 

[boedicca]

The Wall Street Journal today has a lead editorial noting with disapproval that both the Boston police commissioner and Pres. Obama have avoided calling the bombing of the Boston Marathon "terrorism."

Well, why don't they? What possibility are they holding open, that it was a crime by a crazy who built him some bombs like school shooters go killing? Is that NOT terrorism? Under what circumstances can we call this terrorism, and what not? What about Fort Hood? "Workplace violence" or terrorism? I thought workplace violence was about some crazy guy mad at his ex, comes in all loaded down with guns to shoot her and whoever else gets in the way. But the Fort Hood guy was Muslim and yelled Muslim things and was very political, so why isn't that terrorism?

I am very confused about this issue of what is terrorism and what isn't. On a larger scale, it came up on 9/11: what is an act of war, and how do you tell if it should be called something lesser? A lot of people wanted to call 9/11 a criminal act, or "just" terrorism.

I also don't know what terrorism is FOR. Why do people constantly set off bombs in Baghdad markets? Why does that seem like a GOOD idea? I don't know what terrorists are trying to accomplish. When terrorists set off bombs in the London subway --- what were they hoping to GET?

To me there has to be three components.

1. A political or religious motivation
2. The Target has to be civillians
3. The perpetrators have to be civillians.

Without the political or religious motivation, what you have is a madman if it is done for ha-ha's. In other cases there is usually a monetary motivation.

Without the targets being civillians you have an act of war.

Without the perpetrators being civillians what you have is war crimes.

Terrorism is a low level method of conflict where the objective is to wear down your opponent through attacks on civillian population and infrastructure, in the hope that your opponent will get weary of the conflict, and give in/leave.

I disagree with 1-3. The hallmark is that it is an organized effort involving some sort of network or group. An attack "terrorizes" because it may be part of a series of attacks that can happen anywhere at any time.

The targets can be anyone as well.

 

[Pop23]

Would you define the sandy hook shooting as terrorism?

No...........no political point.

Private motivations, psychotic.

Agreed, not diminishing it's horror to those near it, but it was a simple criminal act by a madman. He might of wanted it to be an act of terror, but it never made that level IMHO.

 

[AmyNation]

Would you define the sandy hook shooting as terrorism?

No...........no political point.

Private motivations, psychotic.

I agree. So, I would say, we don't know if Boston is terrorism, without knowing the bomber.

Its important for the president to choose his words carefully. I'm glad he doesn't rush to call this an act of terrorism, but is waiting before adding labels.

 

[Pop23]

Would you define the sandy hook shooting as terrorism?

No...........no political point.

Private motivations, psychotic.

I agree. So, I would say, we don't know if Boston is terrorism, without knowing the bomber.

Its important for the president to choose his words carefully. I'm glad he doesn't rush to call this an act of terrorism, but is waiting before adding labels.

Not so sure. The act was done to create terror. I don't think we are trying to define the word terrorist, I think we are looking to define "act of terrorism" or "act of terrorist". At a minimum it was an "act of terrorism", meaning someone did something to terrorize the public in general.

That I think that actually is obvious without knowing who or why, but I can live with criminal act as well. They are interchangable often enough.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Wall Street Journal today has a lead editorial noting with disapproval that both the Boston police commissioner and Pres. Obama have avoided calling the bombing of the Boston Marathon "terrorism."

Well, why don't they? What possibility are they holding open, that it was a crime by a crazy who built him some bombs like school shooters go killing? Is that NOT terrorism? Under what circumstances can we call this terrorism, and what not? What about Fort Hood? "Workplace violence" or terrorism? I thought workplace violence was about some crazy guy mad at his ex, comes in all loaded down with guns to shoot her and whoever else gets in the way. But the Fort Hood guy was Muslim and yelled Muslim things and was very political, so why isn't that terrorism?

I am very confused about this issue of what is terrorism and what isn't. On a larger scale, it came up on 9/11: what is an act of war, and how do you tell if it should be called something lesser? A lot of people wanted to call 9/11 a criminal act, or "just" terrorism.

I also don't know what terrorism is FOR. Why do people constantly set off bombs in Baghdad markets? Why does that seem like a GOOD idea? I don't know what terrorists are trying to accomplish. When terrorists set off bombs in the London subway --- what were they hoping to GET?

Depends on your point of view.

If you are the bomber, you're either doing your duty and following orders or you're a hero to some group of people.

If you are the bombie; anyone blowing you up is a terrorist.


As far as Boston goes; No one is going to blow up the finish line that isn't some kind of terrorist.

no criminal is going to do that, unless they actually are insane.