Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

[Synthaholic]

Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

Can an act of violence be called 'terrorism' if the motive is unknown?


Two very disparate commentators, Ali Abunimah and Alan Dershowitz, both raised serious questions over the weekend about a claim that has been made over and over about the bombing of the Boston Marathon: namely, that this was an act of terrorism. Dershowitz was on BBC Radio on Saturday and, citing the lack of knowledge about motive, said (at the 3:15 mark): "It's not even clear under the federal terrorist statutes that it qualifies as an act of terrorism." Abunimah wrote a superb analysis of whether the bombing fits the US government's definition of "terrorism", noting that "absolutely no evidence has emerged that the Boston bombing suspects acted 'in furtherance of political or social objectives'" or that their alleged act was 'intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.'" Even a former CIA Deputy Director, Phillip Mudd, said on Fox News on Sunday that at this point the bombing seems more like a common crime than an act of terrorism.


Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word "terrorism" was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that "terrorism" either.
In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the identity of the suspects was revealed, the word "terrorism" is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened. After initially (and commendably) refraining from using the word, President Obama has since said that "we will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had" and then said that "on Monday an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three people at the Boston Marathon". But as Abunimah notes, there is zero evidence that either of the two suspects had any connection to or involvement with any designated terrorist organization.


*snip*


But beyond that issue, even those assuming the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers seem to have no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of "terrorism" in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine. All we really know about them in this regard is that they identified as Muslim, and that the older brother allegedly watched extremist YouTube videos and was suspected by the Russian government of religious extremism (by contrast, virtually every person who knew the younger brother has emphatically said that he never evinced political or religious extremism).


*snip*

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

Can an act of violence be called 'terrorism' if the motive is unknown?


Two very disparate commentators, Ali Abunimah and Alan Dershowitz, both raised serious questions over the weekend about a claim that has been made over and over about the bombing of the Boston Marathon: namely, that this was an act of terrorism. Dershowitz was on BBC Radio on Saturday and, citing the lack of knowledge about motive, said (at the 3:15 mark): "It's not even clear under the federal terrorist statutes that it qualifies as an act of terrorism." Abunimah wrote a superb analysis of whether the bombing fits the US government's definition of "terrorism", noting that "absolutely no evidence has emerged that the Boston bombing suspects acted 'in furtherance of political or social objectives'" or that their alleged act was 'intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.'" Even a former CIA Deputy Director, Phillip Mudd, said on Fox News on Sunday that at this point the bombing seems more like a common crime than an act of terrorism.


Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word "terrorism" was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that "terrorism" either.
In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the identity of the suspects was revealed, the word "terrorism" is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened. After initially (and commendably) refraining from using the word, President Obama has since said that "we will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had" and then said that "on Monday an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three people at the Boston Marathon". But as Abunimah notes, there is zero evidence that either of the two suspects had any connection to or involvement with any designated terrorist organization.


*snip*


But beyond that issue, even those assuming the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers seem to have no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of "terrorism" in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine. All we really know about them in this regard is that they identified as Muslim, and that the older brother allegedly watched extremist YouTube videos and was suspected by the Russian government of religious extremism (by contrast, virtually every person who knew the younger brother has emphatically said that he never evinced political or religious extremism).


*snip*

i classify everyone of those as Urban Terrorism......the Gangs in this Country do this shit all the time and they are not even talked about....and they are THEE Urban Terrorist .....

 

[Freemason9]

Boston was terrorism because the perpetrators had brown skin. Duh.

 

[LoudMcCloud]

To take away our freedoms incrementally.

 

[novasteve]

Politics were involved in Boston and not the others.

 

[Connery]

The motivation was clear, "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack" They purportedly were on their way to NYC to set off more bombs.

Boston Bombing Suspects Motivated By Afghanistan, Iraq Wars: Report

Further, 18 USC § 2331 - Definitions:

"(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

18 USC § 2331 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Yurt]

intent does not matter. see the definition posted by connery and you have your answer.

 

[PredFan]

Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

Can an act of violence be called 'terrorism' if the motive is unknown?


Two very disparate commentators, Ali Abunimah and Alan Dershowitz, both raised serious questions over the weekend about a claim that has been made over and over about the bombing of the Boston Marathon: namely, that this was an act of terrorism. Dershowitz was on BBC Radio on Saturday and, citing the lack of knowledge about motive, said (at the 3:15 mark): "It's not even clear under the federal terrorist statutes that it qualifies as an act of terrorism." Abunimah wrote a superb analysis of whether the bombing fits the US government's definition of "terrorism", noting that "absolutely no evidence has emerged that the Boston bombing suspects acted 'in furtherance of political or social objectives'" or that their alleged act was 'intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.'" Even a former CIA Deputy Director, Phillip Mudd, said on Fox News on Sunday that at this point the bombing seems more like a common crime than an act of terrorism.


Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word "terrorism" was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that "terrorism" either.
In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the identity of the suspects was revealed, the word "terrorism" is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened. After initially (and commendably) refraining from using the word, President Obama has since said that "we will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had" and then said that "on Monday an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three people at the Boston Marathon". But as Abunimah notes, there is zero evidence that either of the two suspects had any connection to or involvement with any designated terrorist organization.


*snip*


But beyond that issue, even those assuming the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers seem to have no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of "terrorism" in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine. All we really know about them in this regard is that they identified as Muslim, and that the older brother allegedly watched extremist YouTube videos and was suspected by the Russian government of religious extremism (by contrast, virtually every person who knew the younger brother has emphatically said that he never evinced political or religious extremism).


*snip*

They are, in a way, but the bombing in Boston is Islamic Terrorism.

 

[waltky]

More bombs were planned...

Boston suspects intended second attack in Times Square, New York officials say
25 Apr.`13 - The surviving Boston Marathon suspect has told investigators that he and his brother decided after the attack to set off more of their arsenal — as many as six bombs — in Times Square, authorities in New York said Thursday.

The suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, first told investigators that the brothers were headed for New York to party after the marathon blasts, but he said under later questioning that they changed plans on the fly and intended a second attack there, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said. Mayor Michael Bloomberg told reporters that city officials were informed by the FBI of the turn in the investigation on Wednesday night. City officials were told that “the surviving attacker revealed that New York City was next on their list of targets. He and his brother had intended to drive to New York and detonate additional explosives in Times Square,” he said.

Senior law enforcement officials cautioned to NBC News that the idea was undeveloped. One senior official described the plan as “aspirational at most.” The brothers’ decision was spontaneous and came after they carjacked an SUV and before a shootout with suburban Boston police early Friday, Kelly said. At that time, they had one bomb made with a kitchen pressure cooker and five pipe bombs, he said. The brothers’ plan was interrupted only because they realized the SUV was low on gas, Kelly said.

Bloomberg said that the attackers would have encountered a heavy police presence in Times Square, and that an extensive network of cameras would have seen them, but that there was no guarantee they would have been thwarted. “We don’t know if we would have been able to stop the terrorists if they had arrived here from Boston,” he said. “We’re just thankful that we didn’t have to find out the answer.” Kelly said Tsarnaev, who has been hospitalized since he was captured Friday, was more lucid in the second questioning and was speaking. Initially, he communicated with investigators mostly by moving his head and by writing, investigators have said.

Kelly said police knew of two visits by the younger Tsarnaev brother to New York last year — once on or before April 18, and once in November. He said he did not know whether those visits were related to any plot against Times Square. The New York office of the FBI said there was no ongoing specific or credible threat to the city. Tsarnaev, who was wounded in the shootout with police, is in fair condition at a Boston hospital. His older brother and the second suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed after the shootout. Authorities say they also shot and killed a Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus patrol officer.

MORE

See also:

Officials: Tsarnaev read rights, stopped talking
April 25, 2013 - Officials tell the Associated Press that surviving Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, admitted his role in the bombing to the FBI, but stopped talking to police when he was read his Miranda rights.

Tsarnaev went silent after a magistrate judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney's office entered his hospital room and gave him his Miranda warning, according to four officials of both political parties briefed on the interrogation. They insisted on anonymity because the briefing was private.

Tsarnaev began responding to investigators' questions Sunday evening, marking a dramatic turn for law enforcement officials trying to piece together why two brothers born near war-torn Chechnya allegedly carried out an attack on their adopted country.

Source

 

[whitehall]

Lefties have been attempting irrational arguments about terrorism ever since they were disappointed that the Boston bombers were part of the jihad instead of the Tea Party.

 

[Synthaholic]

The motivation was clear, "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack" They purportedly were on their way to NYC to set off more bombs.

Boston Bombing Suspects Motivated By Afghanistan, Iraq Wars: Report

Further, 18 USC § 2331 - Definitions:

"(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

18 USC § 2331 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

If politics is the benchmark, then Gabby Gifford's attack is terrorism.

 

[Connery]

The motivation was clear, "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack" They purportedly were on their way to NYC to set off more bombs.

Boston Bombing Suspects Motivated By Afghanistan, Iraq Wars: Report

Further, 18 USC § 2331 - Definitions:

"(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

18 USC § 2331 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

If politics is the benchmark, then Gabby Gifford's attack is terrorism.

Politics is not the benchmark, but a mere indicator. There are several other elements/qualifiers involved as well pursuant to the statute.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

Can an act of violence be called 'terrorism' if the motive is unknown?


Two very disparate commentators, Ali Abunimah and Alan Dershowitz, both raised serious questions over the weekend about a claim that has been made over and over about the bombing of the Boston Marathon: namely, that this was an act of terrorism. Dershowitz was on BBC Radio on Saturday and, citing the lack of knowledge about motive, said (at the 3:15 mark): "It's not even clear under the federal terrorist statutes that it qualifies as an act of terrorism." Abunimah wrote a superb analysis of whether the bombing fits the US government's definition of "terrorism", noting that "absolutely no evidence has emerged that the Boston bombing suspects acted 'in furtherance of political or social objectives'" or that their alleged act was 'intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.'" Even a former CIA Deputy Director, Phillip Mudd, said on Fox News on Sunday that at this point the bombing seems more like a common crime than an act of terrorism.


Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word "terrorism" was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that "terrorism" either.
In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the identity of the suspects was revealed, the word "terrorism" is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened. After initially (and commendably) refraining from using the word, President Obama has since said that "we will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had" and then said that "on Monday an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three people at the Boston Marathon". But as Abunimah notes, there is zero evidence that either of the two suspects had any connection to or involvement with any designated terrorist organization.


*snip*


But beyond that issue, even those assuming the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers seem to have no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of "terrorism" in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine. All we really know about them in this regard is that they identified as Muslim, and that the older brother allegedly watched extremist YouTube videos and was suspected by the Russian government of religious extremism (by contrast, virtually every person who knew the younger brother has emphatically said that he never evinced political or religious extremism).


*snip*

A bomb was used, so someone on TV said terror, then it stuck.

if it turns out they were guided by terror groups, then terror it is.
if they were just a couple of douches out for a thrill kill, then it's spree killing.

 

[theHawk]

Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

Can an act of violence be called 'terrorism' if the motive is unknown?


Two very disparate commentators, Ali Abunimah and Alan Dershowitz, both raised serious questions over the weekend about a claim that has been made over and over about the bombing of the Boston Marathon: namely, that this was an act of terrorism. Dershowitz was on BBC Radio on Saturday and, citing the lack of knowledge about motive, said (at the 3:15 mark): "It's not even clear under the federal terrorist statutes that it qualifies as an act of terrorism." Abunimah wrote a superb analysis of whether the bombing fits the US government's definition of "terrorism", noting that "absolutely no evidence has emerged that the Boston bombing suspects acted 'in furtherance of political or social objectives'" or that their alleged act was 'intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.'" Even a former CIA Deputy Director, Phillip Mudd, said on Fox News on Sunday that at this point the bombing seems more like a common crime than an act of terrorism.


Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word "terrorism" was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that "terrorism" either.
In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the identity of the suspects was revealed, the word "terrorism" is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened. After initially (and commendably) refraining from using the word, President Obama has since said that "we will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had" and then said that "on Monday an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three people at the Boston Marathon". But as Abunimah notes, there is zero evidence that either of the two suspects had any connection to or involvement with any designated terrorist organization.


*snip*


But beyond that issue, even those assuming the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers seem to have no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of "terrorism" in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine. All we really know about them in this regard is that they identified as Muslim, and that the older brother allegedly watched extremist YouTube videos and was suspected by the Russian government of religious extremism (by contrast, virtually every person who knew the younger brother has emphatically said that he never evinced political or religious extremism).


*snip*

Sandy Hook, Tucson, ect, are all examples of mentally ill people murderering people just because they are sick in the head, not for any political or religious reason.

Cases like Ft Hood shooting, '96 Olympic bomber, Timothy McVeigh, and Obama's pal William Ayers are examples of "terrorism". These people knew what they were doing and were trying to make a political statement through the act of violence.

Now, I've seen no indications that these brothers were mentally ill, or just a couple of social rejects like the columbine shitheads. These two assholes were radical Islamists, that hated America and its involvement in the middle east. They knew what they were doing, the followed the lead of other muslims terrorists and followed suit.

But, I'm sure that won't stop you from circling the wagons around your fellow America hating Muslim friends.

Carry on, dipshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

Can an act of violence be called 'terrorism' if the motive is unknown?


Two very disparate commentators, Ali Abunimah and Alan Dershowitz, both raised serious questions over the weekend about a claim that has been made over and over about the bombing of the Boston Marathon: namely, that this was an act of terrorism. Dershowitz was on BBC Radio on Saturday and, citing the lack of knowledge about motive, said (at the 3:15 mark): "It's not even clear under the federal terrorist statutes that it qualifies as an act of terrorism." Abunimah wrote a superb analysis of whether the bombing fits the US government's definition of "terrorism", noting that "absolutely no evidence has emerged that the Boston bombing suspects acted 'in furtherance of political or social objectives'" or that their alleged act was 'intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.'" Even a former CIA Deputy Director, Phillip Mudd, said on Fox News on Sunday that at this point the bombing seems more like a common crime than an act of terrorism.


Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word "terrorism" was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that "terrorism" either.
In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the identity of the suspects was revealed, the word "terrorism" is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened. After initially (and commendably) refraining from using the word, President Obama has since said that "we will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had" and then said that "on Monday an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three people at the Boston Marathon". But as Abunimah notes, there is zero evidence that either of the two suspects had any connection to or involvement with any designated terrorist organization.


*snip*


But beyond that issue, even those assuming the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers seem to have no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of "terrorism" in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine. All we really know about them in this regard is that they identified as Muslim, and that the older brother allegedly watched extremist YouTube videos and was suspected by the Russian government of religious extremism (by contrast, virtually every person who knew the younger brother has emphatically said that he never evinced political or religious extremism).


*snip*

Short answer, yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Boston was terrorism because the perpetrators had brown skin. Duh.

Obama is a racist?

 

[Pogo]

The motivation was clear, "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack" They purportedly were on their way to NYC to set off more bombs.

Boston Bombing Suspects Motivated By Afghanistan, Iraq Wars: Report

Further, 18 USC § 2331 - Definitions:

"(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

18 USC § 2331 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

I disagree. Terrorism is supposed to impart a message. If we have to guess and theorize and wonder about what the message might be, then no message has been conveyed. A terrorist message is stark, visceral, immediate and needs no explanation.

Planes flying into a major icon of capitalism and a military operations base--- message obvious: "Death to American power".
Abortion doctor murdered in church -- message obvious: "Stop abortions"
Lesbian bar bombed -- message obvious: "Gays go home".
Federal building bombed-- message obvious "Down with the government"

Boston marathon bombed -- wtf is the message? The way they committed this act, we didn't even know who did it let alone what the intent was. Now where is any message in a random destructive act committed in a nonpolitical setting by assailants who are unknown??

A theory on the background that may have pissed off a perp is in no way the same as the stark intimidation their act conveys. The comparison in the OP article is well taken; Harris and Klebold and Holmes and Lanza all had something or combination of things set them off. But none of them were sending a political message. Nor was this. There's nothing that can be called "political" about running a marathon.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

...because terrorism is an act of violence as a means of coercion, usually political. Are you suggesting that the other events you cite were means of coercion?

Please.

 

[Pogo]

...because terrorism is an act of violence as a means of coercion, usually political. Are you suggesting that the other events you cite were means of coercion?

Please.

Who the hell are you talking to? Who's "you"?
Do you not know how to use the "quote" button?

 

[Connery]

The motivation was clear, "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack" They purportedly were on their way to NYC to set off more bombs.

Boston Bombing Suspects Motivated By Afghanistan, Iraq Wars: Report

Further, 18 USC § 2331 - Definitions:

"(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

18 USC § 2331 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

I disagree. Terrorism is supposed to impart a message. If we have to guess and theorize and wonder about what the message might be, then no message has been conveyed. A terrorist message is stark, visceral, immediate and needs no explanation.

Planes flying into a major icon of capitalism and a military operations base--- message obvious: "Death to American power".
Abortion doctor murdered in church -- message obvious: "Stop abortions"
Lesbian bar bombed -- message obvious: "Gays go home".
Federal building bombed-- message obvious "Down with the government"

Boston marathon bombed -- wtf is the message? The way they committed this act, we didn't even know who did it let alone what the intent was. Now where is any message in a random destructive act committed in a nonpolitical setting by assailants who are unknown??

A theory on the background that may have pissed off a perp is in no way the same as the stark intimidation their act conveys. The comparison in the OP article is well taken; Harris and Klebold and Holmes and Lanza all had something or combination of things set them off. But none of them were sending a political message. Nor was this. There's nothing that can be called "political" about running a marathon.

The US has several elements which define an act of terrorism, according to the Code of Federal Regulations Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

The term "terrorism" has been attached to this situation as a popular and easy way to explain the motivation.

What Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been charged with on the federal level is:

18 USC sec 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction

18 USC sec 844(i) - Malicious Destruction of Property Resulting in Death.


http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-20130422-TsarnaevCharges.pdf