Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Well, some people Are Insane. I tend to agree with you that is terrorism because insane people typically either want attention or go on a suicide mission - neither of which happened here.
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.
More people died in Sandy Hook than Boston.
Because of sandy hook, we have a host of new guns laws being presented, schools across the country have changed their security. we even have vigilantly groups who now patrol schools for trouble.
What makes Boston an act of terror, but not Sandy Hook?
Ok, what about the mall shooter? There were cameras for that.
Is it the fact that there were cameras? Or that he used bombs? Choose that day or that race?
I stand by the notion that we cant call it terrorism without knowing the bomber. He could just be a boston resident whos nuts and choose that race because it was coming up or because he hates runners. He could be anti-government and choose that day or anti-tax or used the Oklahoma anniversary, or NK leaders birthday.
We just dont know.
Whatever the definition is, I fail to see why so many commentators are getting so foamy-about-the-mouth about whether the President used the word or not.
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.
Whatever the definition is, I fail to see why so many commentators are getting so foamy-about-the-mouth about whether the President used the word or not.
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.
What Marty posted is the exact definition of what terrorism is..
Words are not about "feeling".
They are about "meaning".
Whatever the definition is, I fail to see why so many commentators are getting so foamy-about-the-mouth about whether the President used the word or not.
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.
Whatever the definition is, I fail to see why so many commentators are getting so foamy-about-the-mouth about whether the President used the word or not.
It's a hangover from 9/11/2001 when some people, leftists, wanted to call it criminal activity rather than an act of war? Jeepers, tall buildings were collapsing into dust before our very eyes and they called it criminal? We definitely needed to go to war on somebody. We just needed to find out WHO.
I suppose it's much the same now.
It's obvious that the Boston Marathon is a prime terrorist target: worldwide attention, foreign runners NORMALLY win, major American sports thing.
Very like the Olympics at Athens ..........some millennia ago. If you think about it, the Boston Marathon has ---- had until Monday ---- much the same cachet. How are the mighty fallen. So it was a great terrorist target and we assume it was a terrorist who bombed it.
But maybe not! Someone above, excuse me for not checking, usefully said that terrorism needed to be organized, a group of people. Does that mean if it's like that Fort Hood bomber or the many half-crazed political psychotics that have done so many plots and a few attacks, that it doesn't count as terrorism????
I'd say it does, just because I know about the anarchists of the 19th century, threw a LOT of bombs, assassinated a LOT of heads of state, but they did each work totally alone, because anarchists cannot organize, on principle.
Still...........it's an interesting argument. I'm almost convinced. If they are loners, however political they think they are, are they simply crazies?
I think it's possible to reasonable categorize lone crazies like the Fort Hood guy as simply....psychotics, however much they may THINK they are working for Allah, or Stalin, or Marx, or in memory of Ruby Ridge, or whatever. Loners are nut cases, that's that?
So if the Boston guy worked alone, HE'S NOT A TERRORIST????
This is not about politics and these are not terrorists. These are just psychotics, a different situation altogether. The Boston guy could be that, but .....too political a target, so I'm betting it's political.
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.
MOTIVE
More people died in Sandy Hook than Boston.
Because of sandy hook, we have a host of new guns laws being presented, schools across the country have changed their security. we even have vigilantly groups who now patrol schools for trouble.
What makes Boston an act of terror, but not Sandy Hook?
What makes Boston an act of terror, but not Sandy Hook?
We cannot know in either case.
MOTIVES are still unclear in BOTH cases.
I agree with a lot of the distinctions made; that certain kinds of psychotics are not terrorists when they are mainly interested in the body count, etc. But the defining feature of terrorism is terror. The object is not necessarily a high body count, it is to disrupt ordinary economic, social, and political activity through shock and fear. The motive is often religious or ideological, but the goal is the disruption.
So bombing an abortion clinic is an act of terrorism in almost any conceivable situation while bombing a dental office is not. The key is that in the mind of the perpetrator the act generates the shock necessary to disrupt the public and change their behavior. There can be some close cases though, when there is a mixture of motives as in when a terrorist chooses a target based on perceived slights and personal revenge, like the guy who flew his airplane into an IRS building.
I agree with a lot of the distinctions made; that certain kinds of psychotics are not terrorists when they are mainly interested in the body count, etc. But the defining feature of terrorism is terror. The object is not necessarily a high body count, it is to disrupt ordinary economic, social, and political activity through shock and fear. The motive is often religious or ideological, but the goal is the disruption.
So bombing an abortion clinic is an act of terrorism in almost any conceivable situation while bombing a dental office is not. The key is that in the mind of the perpetrator the act generates the shock necessary to disrupt the public and change their behavior. There can be some close cases though, when there is a mixture of motives as in when a terrorist chooses a target based on perceived slights and personal revenge, like the guy who flew his airplane into an IRS building.
Okay, this is good. I feel you've got something here.
However, "propaganda of the deed," as the anarchists used to call it, is so INCOHERENT. How are people supposed to know which way the bomber wants them to jump? They don't even say whodunnit! It disrupts, but without it being at all obvious what the message is. They cannot possibly want people to quit running marathons!
I agree that bombing an abortion clinic is a clear act of terrorism with a clear message. Bombing the Murray Federal Building was also clear: McVeigh was anti-government. Bombing a marathon anonymously is not clear. Bombing markets in Baghdad is also not clear ---------
How about this: bombings of the latter two sorts are to undermine confidence in the government? I've heard that explanation. Obviously whatever passes for a government in Iraq is totally out of control, they have daily and weekly bombings there. Perhaps anonymous bombers want to persuade Americans that their government is helpless and ineffective here.
I can't see where that gets them, though. What could happen as a result of people losing confidence in the government's ability to maintain law and order that would benefit any terrorists' cause?
You see why I am so genuinely puzzled. None of this makes sense unless it's just psychotics killing because they get a thrill out of killing, which is what I'm leaning to as an explanation, that most "terrorism," especially if individual rather than by a group, is simply psychosis whatever doctrine the crazy may dress it up with.
