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

[FA_Q2]

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?

That depends on what the goal is though. We don’t know here but usually when the people are just trying to undermine the government they are anarchists and that is achieving their goal. Undermine the government enough until the whole system falls apart.

Interestingly enough though, the opposite effect is generally seen. Usually a threatened populous goes close to a police state with excessive terrorism, not the opposite. Look at this countries response or Israel.

It is similar with Islamic extremists that we are dealing with currently. They want to destabilize the western ‘evil’ nations until they collapse in on themselves.

 

[oldfart]

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.

First there clearly can be a muddle of motives. Expecting clear logical thinking in all terrorist actions would be a stretch.

But in some case there is a logic to random systematic terror. Some ideologies believe that they cannot seize power through lawful actions in a society. To them, the only viable path to power is to create a vacuum, a "failed state" such as in Somalia where they can then move with a small force to take over what they could not seize if any effective resistance were mounted. This is actually classic revolutionary theory on both the left and the right. Think of the Cuban Revolution. What great battle did Castro win?
None. When Batista and the moneyed class fled Havana, he moved in.

The myth about Hitler being elected is another example. He won a plurality in a multi-party election and formed a coalition government. Days later the Reichstag burned to the ground. Laws that made him virtually a dictator were rammed through the legislature. But the centerist political parties had been discredited, and the army and industrialists thought they could control Hitler and stood on the sidelines.

Terrorism is a way to create a power vacuum into which a small revolutionary party can move to seize power. It doesn't matter if that party is communist, fascist, religious, or any other ideology just so long as it is willing to use terrorist means to achieve the end of power.

 

[midcan5]

Terrorism is a word, what it means depends on its user and use. Ask McVeigh, Roeder, Eric Rudolph, or bin Laden.

"Terrorism require alienated individuals, a complicit community, and a legitimizing ideology motivated by a desire for revenge, renown, and reaction from the enemy." Louise Richardson

"War is the terrorism of the rich and powerful, and terrorism is the war of the poor and powerless". Peter Ustinov

"The difference between political terror and ordinary crime becomes clear during the change of regimes, in which former terrorists become well-regarded representatives of their country." Jurgen Habermas

"I consider Bush's decision to call for a war against terrorism a serious mistake. He is elevating these criminals to the status of war enemies, and one cannot lead a war against a network if the term war is to retain any definite meaning." Jurgen Habermas

"Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us." Robert Pape

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Downing Street Memo

"Roeder is a terrorist. It is flatly inexplicable why he is not regarded as such, nor his campaign of murderous rhetoric treated with the according contempt. Free speech was never meant to protect from embargo the communications of those who justify and exhort organised terror." Melissa McEwan Free speech wasn't meant for this | Melissa McEwan | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

"Every Wednesday morning, a group of conspirators meets to plot out how to most effectively attack the federal government. This is not a group of rag-tag terrorists – they wear $2,000 suits and occupy powerful positions in society. But their ideas are politically radical and they do pose a real threat to the normal workings of government in the U.S. They are a group of leading conservatives who believe that government is a malevolent force in society and they have a fierce determination to drastically cut it back. They are convinced that the central problem in our country is too much government – too many social programs, too many regulations, and too much taxation – and they are committed to doing something about it." Government is Good - The Anti-Government Campaign

 

[Politico]

No one knows if it was terrorism yet.

 

[Circe]

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.

First there clearly can be a muddle of motives. Expecting clear logical thinking in all terrorist actions would be a stretch.

But in some case there is a logic to random systematic terror. Some ideologies believe that they cannot seize power through lawful actions in a society. To them, the only viable path to power is to create a vacuum, a "failed state" such as in Somalia where they can then move with a small force to take over what they could not seize if any effective resistance were mounted. This is actually classic revolutionary theory on both the left and the right. Think of the Cuban Revolution. What great battle did Castro win?
None. When Batista and the moneyed class fled Havana, he moved in.

The myth about Hitler being elected is another example. He won a plurality in a multi-party election and formed a coalition government. Days later the Reichstag burned to the ground. Laws that made him virtually a dictator were rammed through the legislature. But the centerist political parties had been discredited, and the army and industrialists thought they could control Hitler and stood on the sidelines.

Terrorism is a way to create a power vacuum into which a small revolutionary party can move to seize power. It doesn't matter if that party is communist, fascist, religious, or any other ideology just so long as it is willing to use terrorist means to achieve the end of power.

Hitler didn't rise through terrorism (he DID terrorism, I am aware of his large numbers of Bavarian troops, some 6000, and his threat to march on Berlin in early years.) He rose via a sort of coup d'etat that I would not call terrorism; his route to power was not unlike Napoleon's, and his wasn't terrorism either. I mean, sometimes a strongman just moves in and takes over a chaotic situation, and I'd say that was the history with Castro, too.

The best example of what I'd call terrorism is the famous Hotel David attack by Jews in Israel when the British still controlled it. They were clear: they wanted the British out. They kept on and on attacking targets until the British did a cost-benefit analysis and decided it wasn't worth it, and they did leave. That was clear, it was purposeful, it was terrorism proper.

What I am thinking now is that if it's not clear, it's not terrorism! It has to at least communicate, surely. In the case of Boston, the target wasn't political and the goal doesn't seem to be political in any way that makes any sense, and no one is claiming they did it -- a way to make an attack coherent and purposeful.

Instead, I think it's just part of our great epidemic of homocidal mania going on now. It's like a zombie attack, every day another couple colleges attacked by knife or gun-wielding maniacs fantasizing eating off peoples' faces. Elvis impersonators sending ricin widespread through the mail. The mass murdering has started spreading out from assault rifles to other weapons: poison, bombs, box knives, whatever.

We have a terrible epidemic going on. It's not about terrorism at all: they don't care about terror or politics, I think, they just want a high kill count for the thrill of competing with other mass murderers. In a better day, we used to shut up people like this in mental hospitals in locked wards!! Now we let them run around bombing marathon races and mailing poison. It's a major failure of our society that we are not managing homocidal mania better.

 

[LAfrique]

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?

TERRORISM is defined as the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property with the intent of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Was the 2013 Boston Marathon Explosions acts of terrorism? Possibly. But by whom?

I still do not buy that Tamerlan Tsarnaev and younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev simply vented on Boston Marathon participants. Watch video of explosion at finish line of race and pay close attention to the reactions of agents in yellow and black jackets: Noticed they simply stood their ground, watched and headed towards affected area? Odd.

If that had been an unknown event to government officials, then those agents would not have stood and approached the affected area, seeing they would not have known that the incident did not involve multiple devices (some yet to explode). I detest mind games, and wish the lives of people were not so callously sacrificed.

 

[Pogo]

No one knows if it was terrorism yet.

Sure we do. We knew on the day of that "terrorism" does not apply here, because terrorism must consist of two parts: a terroristic event and a message of intimidation that that event conveys. This had only one of those elements; there was no message. If we have to figure out what the message might possibly be, then it's not a message, and ergo doesn't qualify as terrorism.

By contrast, when somebody shoots an abortion doctor or bombs a clinic, we know the reasoning immediately. It's really not possible to exist in a state of "it may or may not be terrorism". There's nothing vague about it.

 

[Pogo]

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.

First there clearly can be a muddle of motives. Expecting clear logical thinking in all terrorist actions would be a stretch.

But in some case there is a logic to random systematic terror. Some ideologies believe that they cannot seize power through lawful actions in a society. To them, the only viable path to power is to create a vacuum, a "failed state" such as in Somalia where they can then move with a small force to take over what they could not seize if any effective resistance were mounted. This is actually classic revolutionary theory on both the left and the right. Think of the Cuban Revolution. What great battle did Castro win?
None. When Batista and the moneyed class fled Havana, he moved in.

The myth about Hitler being elected is another example. He won a plurality in a multi-party election and formed a coalition government. Days later the Reichstag burned to the ground. Laws that made him virtually a dictator were rammed through the legislature. But the centerist political parties had been discredited, and the army and industrialists thought they could control Hitler and stood on the sidelines.

Terrorism is a way to create a power vacuum into which a small revolutionary party can move to seize power. It doesn't matter if that party is communist, fascist, religious, or any other ideology just so long as it is willing to use terrorist means to achieve the end of power.

Hitler didn't rise through terrorism (he DID terrorism, I am aware of his large numbers of Bavarian troops, some 6000, and his threat to march on Berlin in early years.) He rose via a sort of coup d'etat that I would not call terrorism; his route to power was not unlike Napoleon's, and his wasn't terrorism either. I mean, sometimes a strongman just moves in and takes over a chaotic situation, and I'd say that was the history with Castro, too.

The best example of what I'd call terrorism is the famous Hotel David attack by Jews in Israel when the British still controlled it. They were clear: they wanted the British out. They kept on and on attacking targets until the British did a cost-benefit analysis and decided it wasn't worth it, and they did leave. That was clear, it was purposeful, it was terrorism proper.

What I am thinking now is that if it's not clear, it's not terrorism! It has to at least communicate, surely. In the case of Boston, the target wasn't political and the goal doesn't seem to be political in any way that makes any sense, and no one is claiming they did it -- a way to make an attack coherent and purposeful.

Instead, I think it's just part of our great epidemic of homocidal mania going on now. It's like a zombie attack, every day another couple colleges attacked by knife or gun-wielding maniacs fantasizing eating off peoples' faces. Elvis impersonators sending ricin widespread through the mail. The mass murdering has started spreading out from assault rifles to other weapons: poison, bombs, box knives, whatever.

We have a terrible epidemic going on. It's not about terrorism at all: they don't care about terror or politics, I think, they just want a high kill count for the thrill of competing with other mass murderers. In a better day, we used to shut up people like this in mental hospitals in locked wards!! Now we let them run around bombing marathon races and mailing poison. It's a major failure of our society that we are not managing homocidal mania better.

You hit it right on the head. Bombings, mailings, and shootings. We speak of a "gun culture" but may more accurately call it a "death culture".

 

[Trajan]

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.

can you expand on that?