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

[blackhawk]

Terrorism is generally motivated by a political or religious belief with the intent of forcing through the terrorist acts a political, religious, or social change that seems to be the case with Boston it did not with the other's mentioned in the OP.

 

[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.

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

And those charges are appropriate to the crime. I just don't see any element of "coercion in furtherance of political or social objectives" -- especially when at the time of the incident we have no clue whatsoever what it was supposed to mean or even who did it. From the wording of the charges, terrorism is not counted as a basis there either.

So we can only conclude that a whole lot of people in media (and elsewhere) are misusing a term that has no apparent basis to be used. Changing the definition on the fly.

Question is, why are they doing that?

Unfortunately, because as the saying used to go, it "sells papers".

 

[Connery]

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

And those charges are appropriate to the crime. I just don't see any element of "coercion in furtherance of political or social objectives" -- especially when at the time of the incident we have no clue whatsoever what it was supposed to mean or even who did it. From the wording of the charges, terrorism is not counted as a basis there either.

So we can only conclude that a whole lot of people in media (and elsewhere) are misusing a term that has no apparent basis to be used. Changing the definition on the fly.

Question is, why are they doing that?

Unfortunately, because as the saying used to go, it "sells papers".

I agree. This is all to "stir the pot" and create fear. The more fear the more people feel they need protection. Anxiety is job security for some , fear is a great motivator in separating people from their money.

 

[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*

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.

I don't see this as any more 'terror' than The Unibomber sending bombs through the mail.

 

[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*

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.

I noticed you left out Bush's pals, the bin Ladens.

 

[Pogo]

Terrorism is generally motivated by a political or religious belief with the intent of forcing through the terrorist acts a political, religious, or social change that seems to be the case with Boston it did not with the other's mentioned in the OP.

Can you explain exactly how that seems to be the case with Boston??

The WTC, the Pentagon, a lesbian bar, an abortion clinic, a federal building, all have some political or symbolic significance. They're all charged with some kind of political mojo that the attacks on them opposed and wished to suppress via intimidation-- "political, religious or social change", as you correctly noted.

-- Now what exactly is the political, religious or social significance of a marathon run? What possible point can be made by bombing it? "Walk don't run"? Think about it.

Moreover, the bombers didn't identify themselves or take "credit". So how are we supposed to infer a political, religious or social message from ... nobody? Nobody by definition has no political, religious or social viewpoint at all.

Doesn't work.

 

[skookerasbil]

You fucking losers are so hopelessly deep into the matrix, monster binoculars would be of no assistance...........




Stupid-ass gullible morons.........people with both legs blown off dont sit in a wheelchair looking like they are ready to put on a couple of bandaids and head to the Bruins game later that weekend. They're FCUKING UNCONCSIOUS = 100% certainty. This guy above is holding his leg like, "Oh man....this sorta sucks!!!". Only people who havent been around trauma stuff have no clue.......and thats most people. Ive been around it for over 25 years.........people with far, far less severe traumatic injury go into shock. Most people have no clue about what shock is and why it kicks in as a response to a horrific injury.


Hypovolemic

This is the most common type of shock and is caused by insufficient circulating volume.[2] Its primary cause is hemorrhage (internal and/or external), or loss of fluid from the circulation. Vomiting and diarrhea are the most common cause in children.[1] With other causes including burns, environmental exposure and excess urine loss due to diabetic ketoacidosis and diabetes insipidus.[1]


Shock (circulatory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wake the fuck up and smell the maple nut crunch............or not..........

Indisputable Photo Evidence That the Boston Marathon Bombing Was Staged: Are You a Believer Or Do you Think? (April 21, 2013)

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

I don't see this as any more 'terror' than The Unibomber sending bombs through the mail.

maybe you should check out

the unabombers Industrial Society and Its Future

sometime

 

[Pogo]

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.

I don't see this as any more 'terror' than The Unibomber sending bombs through the mail.

maybe you should check out

the unabombers Industrial Society and Its Future

sometime

I agree with the Haiku player, Kaczynski qualifies as a terrorist, because his actions had a political point (he even insisted that it be disseminated in mass media).
Boston, by the same measure, does not.

(What the point of the post before the haiku is, I have no clue whatsoever, but thanks for that graphic image (/sarc).)

 

[Katzndogz]

The Boston bombers were caught after four days, Kazynski was caught after decades. He had plenty of time to display his manifesto. The goal of liberals is to have bombs the equal of guns and every gun owner a terrorist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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*

Good point.

So, William Ayers is a terrorist

 

[jon_berzerk]

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*

Good point.

So, William Ayers is a terrorist

of course he is

 

[beagle9]

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

And those charges are appropriate to the crime. I just don't see any element of "coercion in furtherance of political or social objectives" -- especially when at the time of the incident we have no clue whatsoever what it was supposed to mean or even who did it. From the wording of the charges, terrorism is not counted as a basis there either.

So we can only conclude that a whole lot of people in media (and elsewhere) are misusing a term that has no apparent basis to be used. Changing the definition on the fly.

Question is, why are they doing that?

Unfortunately, because as the saying used to go, it "sells papers".

Not only was the act deemed terrorism for the right reasons as to who done it once caught, but also it was because of what was found in the evidence/method as to how they done it. Yes, it also strengthened the case that it was terrorism committed by these two because of the links that are now known in it all.. The bombs and method of attack links them to terrorism and the act there of, so why try and suggest otherwise like you are doing ? Is it because this involves a terrorist attack on the government/home front that is currently being run by Obama, and so now if the government and it's echoe chambers can somehow change the meaning in the minds of those who see this as an attack on America and it's government in message there of, and also in method there of, then it can be swept nicely under the rug as not being terrorism or a terrorist attack linked to radical Islamist, Muslims etc., and it will some how save face of Obama and the government who did not keep us safe ??

Hmmmm, is this speak by you done in order to keep Obama's anti-terrorism fight and slate/plate here on the home front clean and clear, otherwise of any link or connection that would make this a successful terror attack against this nation while Obama was on watch at this time in America? Bush said he would do everything to keep the fight over there, and not let it come here again, and he made good on that promise, but here we have another attack on our soil that actually maimed and killed Americans once again by those linked to terrorism/terrorist activities from over seas, and then we have all those failed attempts as well by the same kinds of people in the not so distant past as well.

So hey Obama might as well face the music, and realize that he as the American President is also under attack with the rest of us by a foreign enemy/terrorist who hates this nation and everything it stands for, and also whom have an extreme hate for everything it has stood for. Obama might as well face the music that his government had been successfully attacked on American soil by young Muslims who were radicalized by foreign influenced terrorism and terrorist notions or ideals against America. Hmmmmmm!

 

[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.

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

Was it that difficult to understand that I was responding to the OP title? Okay, then, I was responding to the OP title.

 

[peach174]

Aurora, Sandy Hook and Tucson
Mentally ill murderers, using guns

Boston
Not mentally ill terrorists, using bombs to kill and maim.

The difference between the two
Murder is the intentional taking of another human's life.

Terrorism is the threat or use of violence in order to bring about political, religious, or societal change, specifically against civilians.

In the case of Boston it was religious.

 

[blackhawk]

Terrorism is generally motivated by a political or religious belief with the intent of forcing through the terrorist acts a political, religious, or social change that seems to be the case with Boston it did not with the other's mentioned in the OP.

Can you explain exactly how that seems to be the case with Boston??

The WTC, the Pentagon, a lesbian bar, an abortion clinic, a federal building, all have some political or symbolic significance. They're all charged with some kind of political mojo that the attacks on them opposed and wished to suppress via intimidation-- "political, religious or social change", as you correctly noted.

-- Now what exactly is the political, religious or social significance of a marathon run? What possible point can be made by bombing it? "Walk don't run"? Think about it.

Moreover, the bombers didn't identify themselves or take "credit". So how are we supposed to infer a political, religious or social message from ... nobody? Nobody by definition has no political, religious or social viewpoint at all.

Doesn't work.

According to reports the Boston bomber is claiming the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were part of the reason for their attack you have to take anything he tells you with a degree of skepticism but that would fall under a political motivation in my opinion and fit the bill for terrorism.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

What gets me is that the OP specifically identifies the other examples it uses as acts of "indiscriminate" violence, which pretty much disqualifies them as terrorism because terrorism must be discriminate because it is meant to coerce. The absence of an agenda or means of coercion and it becomes a nutjob killing indiscriminately. No less tragic a loss of life, but terrorism? Silly.

Personally I would much rather have seen the older brother in the Boston bombing captured than the younger brother because he just seems like a typical older-brother worshiper and I doubt they're going to get much useful out of him as far as motivation. That's unfortunate. How big a role is radical Islam play in the bombing? How much of it is "wag the dog?" Hopefully when the dust clears we'll see more clearly. However, the nature of the event makes it very easy to identify with terrorism, so it seems a natural thing to happen. Radical Islam is inextricably linked with terrorism, so I don't really know what else people think is going to happen in the media, whatever the bias.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Terrorism is generally motivated by a political or religious belief with the intent of forcing through the terrorist acts a political, religious, or social change that seems to be the case with Boston it did not with the other's mentioned in the OP.

Can you explain exactly how that seems to be the case with Boston??

The WTC, the Pentagon, a lesbian bar, an abortion clinic, a federal building, all have some political or symbolic significance. They're all charged with some kind of political mojo that the attacks on them opposed and wished to suppress via intimidation-- "political, religious or social change", as you correctly noted.

-- Now what exactly is the political, religious or social significance of a marathon run? What possible point can be made by bombing it? "Walk don't run"? Think about it.

Moreover, the bombers didn't identify themselves or take "credit". So how are we supposed to infer a political, religious or social message from ... nobody? Nobody by definition has no political, religious or social viewpoint at all.

Doesn't work.

According to reports the Boston bomber is claiming the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were part of the reason for their attack you have to take anything he tells you with a degree of skepticism but that would fall under a political motivation in my opinion and fit the bill for terrorism.

doesnt make much sense

to go bomb folks

to protest war

same as ayers did

another terrorist

 

[blackhawk]

Can you explain exactly how that seems to be the case with Boston??

The WTC, the Pentagon, a lesbian bar, an abortion clinic, a federal building, all have some political or symbolic significance. They're all charged with some kind of political mojo that the attacks on them opposed and wished to suppress via intimidation-- "political, religious or social change", as you correctly noted.

-- Now what exactly is the political, religious or social significance of a marathon run? What possible point can be made by bombing it? "Walk don't run"? Think about it.

Moreover, the bombers didn't identify themselves or take "credit". So how are we supposed to infer a political, religious or social message from ... nobody? Nobody by definition has no political, religious or social viewpoint at all.

Doesn't work.

According to reports the Boston bomber is claiming the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were part of the reason for their attack you have to take anything he tells you with a degree of skepticism but that would fall under a political motivation in my opinion and fit the bill for terrorism.

doesnt make much sense

to go bomb folks

to protest war

same as ayers did

another terrorist

Extremist and radicals rarely do things that make sense to anyone but themselves.

 

[beagle9]

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.

I don't see this as any more 'terror' than The Unibomber sending bombs through the mail.

Isn't there two types of terror be it foreign and domestic ?