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

[beagle9]

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.

Has nothing to do with a marathon run, but all to do with the exposure it gave the bombers for their intended maximum impact in which they wanted to project with this choice. There was a message also, but sadly it was cut short by our idiocy in wanting to read terrorist their rights, and then provide them with lawyers who will defend the devil himself if they have to against America and it's interest in security here. I can't believe the way you worded this, as if to suggest that the marathon run was the motivated target by the bombers, because what they may have hated runners is what you are suggesting to us ? LOL

It goes way beyond the target, and why they chose the target they had chosen, and just think if they would have made it into time square, would you still be in denial that these are terrorist ?

 

[Synthaholic]

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

Why?

 

[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*

Good point.

So, William Ayers is a terrorist

Who has claimed he wasn't?

 

[Synthaholic]

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 ?

A distinction without a difference.

The Unibomber was not referred to in the media as a terrorist.

 

[MondoBongo]

Has nothing to do with a marathon run, but all to do with the exposure it gave the bombers for their intended maximum impact in which they wanted to project with this choice. There was a message also, but sadly it was cut short by our idiocy in wanting to read terrorist their rights, and then provide them with lawyers who will defend the devil himself if they have to against America and it's interest in security here. I can't believe the way you worded this, as if to suggest that the marathon run was the motivated target by the bombers, because what they may have hated runners is what you are suggesting to us ? LOL

It goes way beyond the target, and why they chose the target they had chosen, and just think if they would have made it into time square, would you still be in denial that these are terrorist ?

My understanding is that the defendant is indigent which means he will have an attorney appointed for him. Attorneys appointed by the courts tend to represent the system and tend to defend the system rather than an obviously guilty party. Our system is designed to give everyone a fair trial and it's one of the things that make this country great. I'm really shocked at the number of conservatives, both here and on television, who are crying foul because this defendant is going to be afforded rights that are guaranteed in The Constitution - that document ya'll claim is so precious to you right up until the time that it becomes a little inconvenient. At that point, you're ready to shred the damned thing or at least a good third of the Bill of Rights and execute a man without due process.

 

[georgephillip]

For those who believe economics drives political and social objectives in much of this world, free-market capitalism's twenty-first century accidents show how many corporate pressure cookers detonate regularly from Bangladesh to West, Texas.

"The list of 'accidents' is long and painful. In April 2005, a garment factory in Savar collapsed, killing seventy-five workers. In February 2006, another factory collapsed in Dhaka, killing eighteen. In June 2010, a building collapsed in Dhaka, killing twenty-five.

"These are the 'factories' of twenty-first century globalization – poorly built shelters for a production process geared toward long working days, third rate machines, and workers whose own lives are submitted to the imperatives of just-in-time production."

Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Marx wasn't wrong about everything.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s telling to watch conservative subscribers to this thread struggle so to keep Tucson and Sandy Hook out of the terrorism column.

When in fact they simply lack the courage to admit that when a Christian kills innocent people indiscriminately with a gun he’s just your garden-variety criminal, but when a Muslim kills innocent people indiscriminately with a bomb he’s a terrorist.

Of course, for the families of the injured and slain in either Sandy Hook or Boston, they couldn’t care less, and rightfully so.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

I would argue that Boston is considered "terrorism" because, while domestic like the others, it is linked to foreign Jihad. The other incidents you note were the isolated acts committed by psychopaths.

 

[boedicca]

What nationwide or global terrorist network/conspiracy supported the attackers at Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When in fact they simply lack the courage to admit that when a Christian kills innocent people indiscriminately with a gun he’s just your garden-variety criminal, but when a Muslim kills innocent people indiscriminately with a bomb he’s a terrorist.

Of course, for the families of the injured and slain in either Sandy Hook or Boston, they couldn’t care less, and rightfully so.

It’s telling to watch phony "liberal" subscribers to this thread like yourself struggle so to keep Islam morally related to other religions.

When a Christian goes out and kills innocent people indiscriminately with a gun it generally has absolutely nothing to do with his Christian religion, but when a Muslim kills innocent people indiscriminately with a bomb it has everything to do with his Islamic religion.

Of course, you already knew all of this, but you chose to lie about it in order to try and display some sense of politically correct superiority. Unfortunately for you, you swung and missed. Better luck next time.

 

[aleks.iv]

What do you say1. Explosions on Wall Street (16 September 1920) - New York. 38 dead, 143 wounded

Explosion wagon with horse carriage, which was 45 kg and 200 kg of dynamite, scrap iron, in front of the JP Morgan in New York, remains the deadliest terrorist incident in U.S. history. Federal agents to investigate and was rejected by the possible involvement of Soviet spies, members of the Communist Party USA and the Industrial Workers of the World. Historians believed that the explosions could be organized by the Italian anarchists.

2. The explosion at the airport in La Guardia Airport (Dec. 29, 1975) - New York. 11 dead, 75 wounded

The bomb that exploded in the cargo area of ​​the New York LaGuardia Airport, according to some, could be planted the Croatian nationalists, but no one has made any statements about taking responsibility for the attack.

3. The explosion at the parade of the Day of readiness July 22, 1916, San Francisco, California. 10 dead, 40 wounded

As in other unsolved bombings of the early 20th century, the blame for the explosion in readiness Day in San Francisco, has been assigned to the anarchists, but no one has claimed responsibility for the explosion on a patriotic parade. Were prosecuted and convicted two workers activists. Later sentences they were relaxed.

4. Airlines Flight 247 United Airlines, October 10, 1933 - Chesterton, Indiana. 7 dead

All passengers and crew were killed by a nitroglycerin bomb on board the aircraft that fly UA 247 from New York to California. This was the first case of sabotage in the history of commercial aviation.

5. Anthrax attacks (18 September 2001) - New York, New York, and Washington, DC. 5 dead, 17 wounded

After a 7-year FBI investigation announced guilty to sending letters containing anthrax spores (anthrax) to members of the U.S. Senate, a microbiologist Edward Ivins, who worked at the Research Institute of the U.S. Army and committed suicide two years later. However, subsequent investigation of the National Academy of Sciences has rejected key provisions of the results of the FBI, and Senator Patrick Leahy, one of receiving such a letter, said "I am not under any circumstances do not believe that this attack could involve only one person." In 2011, Congressman Russ Holt called for an independent inquiry into the attacks.

6. The explosion at the Boston Marathon (April 15, 2013) - Boston, Massachusetts. W dead, 176 wounded

Two fragmentation bombs planted near the Boston Marathon finish line, have caused carnage and confusion, but no one has claimed responsibility for the attack.

7. Train crash in Palo Verde (9 October 1995) - Paolo Verde, Arizona. 1 dead, 78 injured

Unknown saboteur, who has assumed the responsibility for the damage path, which caused a train wreck Amtrak Sunset Limited, said in a note left on the train, I did it out of revenge for the siege by federal forces settlement Branch Davidian in Waco, Texas.

8. The murder of Alex Odeh (11 October 1985) - Santa Ana, California. 1 dead, two injured

Alex Odeh, a Palestinian Christian, who immigrated to the United States, he worked as a regional director of the Arab-American Committee against Discrimination, was killed by a bomb thrown at the door of his office when he was getting ready to go with the speech in the synagogue, Fountain Valley. Although no one has claimed responsibility for the killing, it is considered responsible for the Jewish Defense League. The FBI found the three suspects in the bombing, and all of them after the explosion left the U.S. to Israel.

9. The explosion in the administrative building of Portland (21 November 1970) - Portland, Oregon. 1 injured

With the explosion of a bomb in Portland's City Hall was injured a night watchman. Responsible is unknown leftist group, although no one has claimed responsibility for the blast.

10. Letters with ricin (October and November 2003). No casualties

Two letters containing ricin were intercepted before the hit to the recipients of the White House and the Senate. In these letters, signed "Fallen Angel", expressed concern about the change of transportation. Reward of 100 thousand dollars for information about the "Fallen Angel" has remained unclaimed.

 

[Pogo]

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

I would argue that Boston is considered "terrorism" because, while domestic like the others, it is linked to foreign Jihad. The other incidents you note were the isolated acts committed by psychopaths.

Again -- for about the 20th time--- where is this "link"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzN3yJXlWrg]Sounds of Night Crickets - YouTube[/ame]

 

[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.

Has nothing to do with a marathon run, but all to do with the exposure it gave the bombers for their intended maximum impact in which they wanted to project with this choice. There was a message also, but sadly it was cut short by our idiocy in wanting to read terrorist their rights

Oh bullshit. You're actually suggesting that in here in 2013, after 47 years of daily exposure on every cop TV show since "Adam 12", that there's somebody walking around unaware that he has the right to remain silent?

Wouldn't matter anyway because once again, if you need investigators and analysts --and conspiracy theorists-- to figure out what the message might have been, then there was no message in the first place. The first rule of terrorism is that there's no doubt whatsoever about what the message is. You want it direct, immediate and gut level.

... and then provide them with lawyers who will defend the devil himself if they have to against America and it's interest in security here. I can't believe the way you worded this, as if to suggest that the marathon run was the motivated target by the bombers, because what they may have hated runners is what you are suggesting to us ? LOL

That's called satire. It's there to illustrate how silly the premise is -- in this case the lengths some people go to in order to find terrorism where none exists.

It goes way beyond the target, and why they chose the target they had chosen, and just think if they would have made it into time square, would you still be in denial that these are terrorist ?

If they conveyed no message, yes. Terrorism strikes at a symbolic target. Without that, it isn't called terrorism. The simple fact of having random people around doesn't exactly qualify as a symbol of anything. Not rocket surgery.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

It’s telling to watch conservative subscribers to this thread struggle so to keep Tucson and Sandy Hook out of the terrorism column.

When in fact they simply lack the courage to admit that when a Christian kills innocent people indiscriminately with a gun he’s just your garden-variety criminal, but when a Muslim kills innocent people indiscriminately with a bomb he’s a terrorist.

Of course, for the families of the injured and slain in either Sandy Hook or Boston, they couldn’t care less, and rightfully so.

I know I've said this twice already, but can we all recognize when a killing is "indiscriminate" it pretty much removes it from the "terrorism" column? I think a basic definition of terms is needed here.

Was the Sandy Hook shooter committing violence as a means to coerce a population or government? If not, then it's not terrorism. Were the Boston bombers? I guess they're trying to figure that out yet, but on the surface it fits terrorism far more than the Sandy Hook shooter.

As for the Tuscon massacre, that could loosely be identified as terrorism because there appears to have been premeditated agenda, but not so clear cut because terrorism is usually carried out on behalf of some kind of political, or sometimes religious, group. That it, there is usually some kind of organization involved.

I'm not attacking this post in particular, just the overall thread that seems to be lacking in a basic understanding of what terrorism is. While there may not be a universally accepted definition, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines it 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”. That can easily provide a benchmark for discussion.

 

[Katzndogz]

If a Christian indiscriminately killed people because they weren't Christian, that would be terrorism. If a Christian kills people because the voices in his head told him to, he's insane. Jared Loughner was a pot head and heavy marijuana user. But, if you said that ALL potheads were indiscriminate killers you would get an argument wouldn't you?

The Tsarnaev brothers committed their acts in furtherance of their holy struggle and that's what makes it terrorism.

 

[Pogo]

If a Christian indiscriminately killed people because they weren't Christian, that would be terrorism. If a Christian kills people because the voices in his head told him to, he's insane. Jared Loughner was a pot head and heavy marijuana user. But, if you said that ALL potheads were indiscriminate killers you would get an argument wouldn't you?

The Tsarnaev brothers committed their acts in furtherance of their holy struggle and that's what makes it terrorism.

---- says who?

And against what?

Just making it up again, huh?

 

[Katzndogz]

If a Christian indiscriminately killed people because they weren't Christian, that would be terrorism. If a Christian kills people because the voices in his head told him to, he's insane. Jared Loughner was a pot head and heavy marijuana user. But, if you said that ALL potheads were indiscriminate killers you would get an argument wouldn't you?

The Tsarnaev brothers committed their acts in furtherance of their holy struggle and that's what makes it terrorism.

---- says who?

And against what?

Just making it up again, huh?

Says them. And their websites, before the government took them down.

 

[Pogo]

If a Christian indiscriminately killed people because they weren't Christian, that would be terrorism. If a Christian kills people because the voices in his head told him to, he's insane. Jared Loughner was a pot head and heavy marijuana user. But, if you said that ALL potheads were indiscriminate killers you would get an argument wouldn't you?

The Tsarnaev brothers committed their acts in furtherance of their holy struggle and that's what makes it terrorism.

---- says who?

And against what?

Just making it up again, huh?

Says them. And their websites, before the government took them down.

Uh huh.

So let's see... you got this from a dead man, his brother who ain't talking, and a website that you can't link because it's "taken down".

That's what I figured.

 

[georgephillip]

What nationwide or global terrorist network/conspiracy supported the attackers at Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

NRA

"sup·port (s-pôrt, -prt)
tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports
1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping..."
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities..."
"7.
a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
b. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes..."

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

What nationwide or global terrorist network/conspiracy supported the attackers at Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

NRA

"sup·port (s-pôrt, -prt)
tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports
1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping..."
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities..."
"7.
a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
b. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes..."

Thanks. I needed a laugh today.