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

[georgephillip]

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.

It's also telling to compare how many people died in Twentieth Century political violence at the hands of Muslims vs the Religion of Peace:

"I don’t figure that Muslims killed more than a 2 million people or so in political violence in the entire twentieth century, and that mainly in the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 and the Soviet and post-Soviet wars in Afghanistan, for which Europeans bear some blame.

"Compare that to the Christian European tally of, oh, lets say 100 million (16 million in WW I, 60 million in WW II– though some of those were attributable to Buddhists in Asia– and millions more in colonial wars.)"

Terrorism and the other Religions | Informed Comment

 

[hoosier88]

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.

(My bold)

The TV 24-hr news cycle guys are lazy. They saw bombs & figured that bombs = terrorism. As a rule of thumb, that's not bad. Except for the Columbine shooters & Unabomber, all the other killers discussed here to date were mostly shooters. Shooting is relatively straight-forward as a means of killing - all you need is the weapon & ammo, & some rudimentary skill in firing. Bombing requires more skill & different skills, finding the instructions, putting together the device, arming, placing, detonating. Bombs require a work space, gathering the components, transporting the device, all while keeping some degree of operational secrecy.

So - if the surviving Tsarnaev says it was for a political or religious purpose, then it was terrorism. But these two are Chechens. From what I've read, the entire Chechen culture - those who grew up in or near Chechnya, especially the young men - are likely affected by a long history of fighting off the Russians (the last in a v. long list of would-be conquerers). I think the Chechen culture has been deformed by this armed struggle, & the reprisals, slaughters, wholesale destruction of their cities, farms, attacks on their culture, language, religion & on & on.

Sure, interrogate the survivor. But we still need to verify what he has to say - because @ this point, I'm not sure he knows himself what's true & what's not.

 

[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.

(My bold)

The TV 24-hr news cycle guys are lazy. They saw bombs & figured that bombs = terrorism. As a rule of thumb, that's not bad. Except for the Columbine shooters & Unabomber, all the other killers discussed here to date were mostly shooters. Shooting is relatively straight-forward as a means of killing - all you need is the weapon & ammo, & some rudimentary skill in firing. Bombing requires more skill & different skills, finding the instructions, putting together the device, arming, placing, detonating. Bombs require a work space, gathering the components, transporting the device, all while keeping some degree of operational secrecy.

So - if the surviving Tsarnaev says it was for a political or religious purpose, then it was terrorism. But these two are Chechens. From what I've read, the entire Chechen culture - those who grew up in or near Chechnya, especially the young men - are likely affected by a long history of fighting off the Russians (the last in a v. long list of would-be conquerers). I think the Chechen culture has been deformed by this armed struggle, & the reprisals, slaughters, wholesale destruction of their cities, farms, attacks on their culture, language, religion & on & on.

Sure, interrogate the survivor. But we still need to verify what he has to say - because @ this point, I'm not sure he knows himself what's true & what's not.

"Lazy" as regards real journalism but more than that they're commercial entities enslaved to ratings, and you simply won't get the ratings by saying "a bomb went off in Boston" as you will by saying "Terrorism in Boston, and we'll tell you why right after this word for toothpaste" or diapers or a pickup truck. Some of the unwashed masses just eat this up without stopping to think about it, as already demonstrated.

These unwashed hear "Muslim", proceed to salivate on command, and absent any evidence of motivation at all declare "terrorism". Even though it carried no message of political coercion that every terrorist act must have, even though they took no responsibility for it, even though we all scratched our heads to suss out not only "why" but "who".

That just does not pass the terrorism test. The whole point of terrorism is that there's no doubt about why it was committed and usually, who did it. As for the Chechen fact, if it is one, the US has no history of leaning on Chechnya, so if Chechen heritage-rage were the motivation, they would have bombed a marathon in Moscow or Omsk*. That would have carried a message. This doesn't. Any more than James Holmes or Adam Lanza had a message.

* where it would have been Oblast

 

[nitroz]

Type of weapons used.

Massacre = guns
Terrorism = bombs/poison.

 

[Circe]

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

No, they didn't: they were very pale! I mean, you are talking about Russians here. You can't get a lot whiter than Russians.

Whether this is "terrorism" and what is terrorism is a good issue to explore, expecially when you have crazies simply hauling off and being homicidal maniacs on their own, which such nuts do all the time, whether they dye their hair orange first or not.

I'm feeling that it's not terrorism unless it is organized by a group that is organizing various continuing attacks, supposedly for some political idea they have, not that it ever comes to anything except wanton destruction. So bin Laden's group were terrorists, and Hamas and the Hezbollah: these all did continuing attacks with political motives, however ineffective.

Actually, Chechens do this all the time, horrific organized attacks for Muslim political ideas, and I think it's still possible that these boys were indeed organized terrorists, but if they just went mad and bombed crowds like the Columbine kids tried to, with no organization behind them, I think it's reasonable to consider them just yet more crazies: we've got an epidemic of those, as I guess we've all noticed. If it had been right wing crazies, we wouldn't necessarily have called them terrorists. Usually those are just ordinary crazies, not organized teams.

Bombing is perhaps just the next fashion in psychotic mass killings, which will relieve the gun collectors if it changes that way.

 

[Circe]

Good point.

So, William Ayers is a terrorist

Well, sure, at least he SAYS he was. Since he wasn't caught, could just be a lot of leftwing talkie-talkie.

But sure -- all those people who organized and built bombs to blow up a dance at Fort Dix or government buildings or rob an armored truck supposedly for the politics of it, as if ---- of course all that is terrorism because they had organized specifically to terrorize with bombs.

All these types are incredibly ineffective and not much happens usually, but it's fair to call it terrorism because organizations mean to strike again and again and again, whereas a crazy is just a one-shot deal, usually. They shoot off their assault rifles, kill a lot of children or movie-goers, and then either shoot themselves or let the police catch them. It's not political and it's not organized.

I don't think we know what was going on with these horrible Chechens yet. We don't even know if the wife was involved; she said not but she may have been.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

(My bold)

The TV 24-hr news cycle guys are lazy. They saw bombs & figured that bombs = terrorism. As a rule of thumb, that's not bad. Except for the Columbine shooters & Unabomber, all the other killers discussed here to date were mostly shooters. Shooting is relatively straight-forward as a means of killing - all you need is the weapon & ammo, & some rudimentary skill in firing. Bombing requires more skill & different skills, finding the instructions, putting together the device, arming, placing, detonating. Bombs require a work space, gathering the components, transporting the device, all while keeping some degree of operational secrecy.

So - if the surviving Tsarnaev says it was for a political or religious purpose, then it was terrorism. But these two are Chechens. From what I've read, the entire Chechen culture - those who grew up in or near Chechnya, especially the young men - are likely affected by a long history of fighting off the Russians (the last in a v. long list of would-be conquerers). I think the Chechen culture has been deformed by this armed struggle, & the reprisals, slaughters, wholesale destruction of their cities, farms, attacks on their culture, language, religion & on & on.

Sure, interrogate the survivor. But we still need to verify what he has to say - because @ this point, I'm not sure he knows himself what's true & what's not.

At this point in his young life, I would bet what's left of mine that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has never been less certain of what's true. If there's a motive behind the Tsarnaev brothers' ...

"ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government."

I'm opting for a combination of 1 and 3.

US foreign policy has often been supportive of Chechnya's struggle for independence, largely for the same reason Kremlin elites supported civil rights in the US during the 1960s; however, US drone strikes and other forms of state-sponsored terror have alienated young Muslim males across the globe.

I would suggest we have also deformed Muslim culture in many countries over the last generation, and preventing more terror attacks like the one in Boston will require Americans to face their own hard truths before the violence that befell Iraq on April 15 comes home to roost.

"A wave of bombings and shootings across Iraq killed at least 75 people and injured more than 350 others on 15 April.[1] The attacks came just days before the provincial elections which will be held on 20 April."

 

[Pogo]

Political motivation.
Newtown, Aurora were crazies who killed out of mental disorder.
Boston's bombings were motivated by politics.

He who asserts must also prove.

You haven't.

Thanks for playing and be sure to play the "Ipse Dixit" game at home.

 

[Pogo]

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

No, they didn't: they were very pale! I mean, you are talking about Russians here. You can't get a lot whiter than Russians.

Whether this is "terrorism" and what is terrorism is a good issue to explore, expecially when you have crazies simply hauling off and being homicidal maniacs on their own, which such nuts do all the time, whether they dye their hair orange first or not.

I'm feeling that it's not terrorism unless it is organized by a group that is organizing various continuing attacks, supposedly for some political idea they have, not that it ever comes to anything except wanton destruction. So bin Laden's group were terrorists, and Hamas and the Hezbollah: these all did continuing attacks with political motives, however ineffective.

Actually, Chechens do this all the time, horrific organized attacks for Muslim political ideas, and I think it's still possible that these boys were indeed organized terrorists, but if they just went mad and bombed crowds like the Columbine kids tried to, with no organization behind them, I think it's reasonable to consider them just yet more crazies: we've got an epidemic of those, as I guess we've all noticed. If it had been right wing crazies, we wouldn't necessarily have called them terrorists. Usually those are just ordinary crazies, not organized teams.

Bombing is perhaps just the next fashion in psychotic mass killings, which will relieve the gun collectors if it changes that way.

I think you're on the right track, and have been from the beginning. I don't agree that a terrorist needs an organization behind him (Kaczinski, McVeigh and Rudolph all acted on their own but they're all terrorists) but there absolutely has to be a clear and obvious message if there is to be political coercion. Flying planes into the WTC is an obvious message, as it attacks a symbol. Bombing a lesbian bar or abortion clinic are obvious messages since they're attacks on obvious symbols. The Pentagon-- another symbol. Here we have absolutely no obvious message at all. (It's a marathon. What's the message? "Walk, don't run"?)

Conceivably there can be an indirect message if some non-symbolic target is hit and it's followed immediately by some communiqué from some group claiming responsibility. The identity of that group and what they stand for, defines what the message is.

But here we don't have that element either. We had no clue who the bombers were, nor did they make the slightest effort to make themselves known; they did the opposite. Had they not been videotaped and identified, we might still be plugging in conspiracy theories from every angle, instead of having these CTs infused from a Chechen or Muslim angle. Anything from North Koreans to Antarctican guerillas to Venutians.

When there's that much of a tabula rasa to fill in, you can't call it terrorism. There's no such thing as terrorism that has no point.

The religious bigots love to jump on the Islam angle as a pretext for what they do, but it has no basis. Tim McVeigh blew up the federal building in OKC, and Tim McVeigh was a Christian. That doesn't make his act "Christian terrorism". Same thing here.

 

[Pogo]

Political motivation.
Newtown, Aurora were crazies who killed out of mental disorder.
Boston's bombings were motivated by politics.

He who asserts must also prove.

You haven't.

Thanks for playing and be sure to play the "Ipse Dixit" game at home.

Because it is clear, one of the fucking bombers said so. You fucking retard.

Fucking link, retard?

 

[chikenwing]

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..."

Now that is truly an ignorant post,not to mention hate filled

 

[emilynghiem]

if the issue is to terrorize people, then all acts involved terrorism to some degree.
the same way "hate crimes" are disputable where all murder involves hatred of somebody or something.

Maybe more specific terms should be used for the different cases.
if you are specifically trying to pinpoint "political terrorism"
as in having a "political" motivation or agenda behind it,

then the Newtown shooting would be more from mental instability and domestic dispute,
while the Boston bombing was allegedly politically motivated
(where the younger brother may be fully capable of reasoning while his older brother may have been criminally ill in addition to having political
motives of war, if he did commit other crimes or abuses in addition to this act of terrorism).

As for Virginia Tech, that was mental issues (and perhaps a domestic or relationship
dispute, I can't remember if that was ever established that a romantic issue instigated it).

The Arizona shootings were both political and mental instability.
The Norway shootings were politically motivated, and the guy had
some sociopathic disorders that allowed him to carry this out.

The Aurora shootings seem to be some guy playing deadly games to test
his neurological theories on people's reactions and how the justice system
responds. so that could be political if he is truly sane and knows he's testing the system.
That is my guess. I believe it could be that guy knows what he is doing, was using terrorism as the test cue, but not for the action in itself.
I am guessing he thinks he is smarter than the system of testing and training people in "neurological sciences,"
and thinks he can send a big FU message to the system by doing this and letting the cards fall where they fall.
So he is making a political statement, but his use of terrorism to do it was not the end in itself, but to study the media and public reactions.
If he knows he is testing people's humanity, that is a different kind of 'sick' if he is fully aware and I believe he well could be.

They all used terrorism but some were more politically motivated than others, and some more mentally out of control than others who had more understanding and control. If I had to guess, i would say the younger brother in the Boston attack and the Aurora shooter have the most control,
and conscious choice of what they were doing and getting involved in. I would actually have mercy on them if they were to use this intelligence they have and agree to confess up to all they were thinking and doing, and agree to all the terms of restitution asked of them, so other people can heal as much as possible, even if they both get the death penalty afterwards. I would support them in asking for restitution if that would help surviving victims with closure, independent of and in addition to whatever the justice system brings. and i believe these two men are intellectually capable of meeting those conditions asked of them if offered the choice for sake of conscience and victims regaining a sense of justice and peace.

For the Arizona shooter and Ft. Hood shooter, both of them would require mental health treatment to stabilize their minds and make sure they have full control of their consciences, and it is possible they could also agree to work with authorities to address and rsolve the whoel process they went through in order to prevent others from going down that road. As David Berkowitz wants to use his life to help reduce crime and suffering.

Note: the common factor I find is that the more people get help to forgive and work through their issues, either personal or political, conscious or unconscious, they are less likely to lose control and commit some abuse or violation whether violent or not. So as public health and safety programs offer better intervention for addressing abusive or problematic behavior at the first sign of trouble, more crime or abuse can be prevented at all levels. I would focus on counseling and mediation for relationship abuse and legal abuse to target problem areas. People with issues are going to have conflicts with other people, so wherever these are discovered and resolved, this increases the chances of catching dangerous people who cannot resolve such issues, and reduces risk of escalation.

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*

 

[Pogo]

Here's your link you **** faced retarded fuckwit.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev interview: Feds say the brothers acted alone, but that Web videos were part of their self-radicalization.

Now prove your claim, traitor!

Go fuck yourself.

I didn't make a "claim", dipwit. I asked for a link. You (finally) gave me one with murky suggestions and a lot of unconnected dots (for starters, what the hell does the Boston Marathon have to do with Iraq?)

That's a rhetorical question. Don't bother to answer because you're obviously an unhinged asshole, and you've earned Ignore in record time. I don't engage in battles of wits with the unarmed.

 

[Katzndogz]

Now it's "self-radicalization". What nonsense. What serious liberal nonsense. They just picked jihad and islam out of the air and made it all up themselves. Is that what they expect to be believed? Doesn't it make even liberals, the most hard core liberals, pissed off to be treated with this kind of contempt?

 

[Circe]

I think you're on the right track, and have been from the beginning. I don't agree that a terrorist needs an organization behind him (Kaczinski, McVeigh and Rudolph all acted on their own but they're all terrorists) but there absolutely has to be a clear and obvious message if there is to be political coercion. Flying planes into the WTC is an obvious message, as it attacks a symbol. Bombing a lesbian bar or abortion clinic are obvious messages since they're attacks on obvious symbols. The Pentagon-- another symbol. Here we have absolutely no obvious message at all. (It's a marathon. What's the message? "Walk, don't run"?)

Conceivably there can be an indirect message if some non-symbolic target is hit and it's followed immediately by some communiqué from some group claiming responsibility. The identity of that group and what they stand for, defines what the message is.

But here we don't have that element either. We had no clue who the bombers were, nor did they make the slightest effort to make themselves known; they did the opposite. Had they not been videotaped and identified, we might still be plugging in conspiracy theories from every angle, instead of having these CTs infused from a Chechen or Muslim angle. Anything from North Koreans to Antarctican guerillas to Venutians.

When there's that much of a tabula rasa to fill in, you can't call it terrorism. There's no such thing as terrorism that has no point.

The religious bigots love to jump on the Islam angle as a pretext for what they do, but it has no basis. Tim McVeigh blew up the federal building in OKC, and Tim McVeigh was a Christian. That doesn't make his act "Christian terrorism". Same thing here.

Okay, you are persuading me it's a very smoky situation. "There's no such thing as terrorism that has no point" is good. What WAS the point at the Marathon? On the other hand, that is what Chechens do, famously: just attack crowds, at the famous Moscow subway attack, or the theater performance where so many died. So to Chechens, and indeed to Iraqis as we know, just KILLING people is somehow meaningful, and the more the better, in crowds, any crowds at all will do.

I don't understand this, and nor do most of us, that's why we're discussing it.

I suppose you must be right that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist....clear message. And Rudolph, too, and the Unabomber. They worked alone, but they defined themselves as terrorists. Well, so did a lot of the 19th century anarchists: they couldn't organize because, literally, anarchists don't do that, they're against it. But they threw bombs into crowds and started WWI that way. I suppose the point of Gavril Princeps' group attack on the Archduke was to show Austria that overwhelming Serbia militarily would not be easy and he'd better think again. That's political.

Okay, to be a "terrorist" they need a clear political message. They should have an organization, optimally, but some terrorists do work alone. Otherwise they are just criminals and madmen and there are also plenty of them.

So was Andre Breivik a terrorist or a madman?

He had a political message -- he didn't like Muslims in Norway -- but his target was irrelevant, a children's camp on an island where he killed 77 young people, nearly all native Norweigians. He worked alone, though he claimed to have an organization, but he didn't.

 

[Pogo]

I think you're on the right track, and have been from the beginning. I don't agree that a terrorist needs an organization behind him (Kaczinski, McVeigh and Rudolph all acted on their own but they're all terrorists) but there absolutely has to be a clear and obvious message if there is to be political coercion. Flying planes into the WTC is an obvious message, as it attacks a symbol. Bombing a lesbian bar or abortion clinic are obvious messages since they're attacks on obvious symbols. The Pentagon-- another symbol. Here we have absolutely no obvious message at all. (It's a marathon. What's the message? "Walk, don't run"?)

Conceivably there can be an indirect message if some non-symbolic target is hit and it's followed immediately by some communiqué from some group claiming responsibility. The identity of that group and what they stand for, defines what the message is.

But here we don't have that element either. We had no clue who the bombers were, nor did they make the slightest effort to make themselves known; they did the opposite. Had they not been videotaped and identified, we might still be plugging in conspiracy theories from every angle, instead of having these CTs infused from a Chechen or Muslim angle. Anything from North Koreans to Antarctican guerillas to Venutians.

When there's that much of a tabula rasa to fill in, you can't call it terrorism. There's no such thing as terrorism that has no point.

The religious bigots love to jump on the Islam angle as a pretext for what they do, but it has no basis. Tim McVeigh blew up the federal building in OKC, and Tim McVeigh was a Christian. That doesn't make his act "Christian terrorism". Same thing here.

Okay, you are persuading me it's a very smoky situation. "There's no such thing as terrorism that has no point" is good. What WAS the point at the Marathon? On the other hand, that is what Chechens do, famously: just attack crowds, at the famous Moscow subway attack, or the theater performance where so many died. So to Chechens, and indeed to Iraqis as we know, just KILLING people is somehow meaningful, and the more the better, in crowds, any crowds at all will do.

I don't understand this, and nor do most of us, that's why we're discussing it.

I suppose you must be right that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist....clear message. And Rudolph, too, and the Unabomber. They worked alone, but they defined themselves as terrorists. Well, so did a lot of the 19th century anarchists: they couldn't organize because, literally, anarchist don't do that, they're against it. But they threw bombs into crowds and started WWI that way. I suppose the point of Gavril Princeps' group attack on the Archduke was to show Austria that overwhelming Serbia militarily would not be easy and he'd better think again. That's political.

Okay, to be a "terrorist" they need a clear political message. They should have an organization, optimally, but some terrorists do work alone. Otherwise they are just criminals and madmen and there are also plenty of them.

So was Andre Breivik a terrorist or a madman?

He had a political message -- he didn't like Muslims in Norway -- but his target was irrelevant, a children's camp on an island where he killed 77 young people, nearly all native Norweigians. He worked alone, though he claimed to have an organization, but he didn't.

Good question. I'd have to say Breivik was not. He may have had radical political urges, even strong ones, but nothing in his act told us what he was about. In flying a plane into the Pentagon or shooting an abortion doctor, the act alone is the message. Breivik may have had a political background (who doesn't?) but it doesn't seem his act was in furtherance of it. We had to research that out later. He's certainly a madman.

What WAS the point at the Marathon? On the other hand, that is what Chechens do, famously: just attack crowds, at the famous Moscow subway attack, or the theater performance where so many died. So to Chechens, and indeed to Iraqis as we know, just KILLING people is somehow meaningful, and the more the better, in crowds, any crowds at all will do.

I don't know much about those, but attacks within Russia could certainly be construed as attacks on an "enemy". But Boston (and the US) has no beef, or history, with Chechnya so that particular target makes no sense for the context. There's no symbology and no revenge factor.

 

[Circe]

I'd have to say Breivik was not [a terrorist]. He may have had radical political urges, even strong ones, but nothing in his act told us what he was about. In flying a plane into the Pentagon or shooting an abortion doctor, the act alone is the message. Breivik may have had a political background (who doesn't?) but it doesn't seem his act was in furtherance of it. We had to research that out later. He's certainly a madman.

Good. This seems to be the conclusion the Norweigians themselves have arrived at. And I like the point that people may SAY they are political this way, political that way --- but their "politics," as with the Unabomber in his 10-ft-sq shed home, may just be another symptom of their madness, a delusion. Breivik killed 77 Norweigian children on an island because he didn't like Muslims.... There is really no sane connection between those two statements.

...I don't know much about those, but attacks within Russia could certainly be construed as attacks on an "enemy". But Boston (and the US) has no beef, or history, with Chechnya so that particular target makes no sense for the context. There's no symbology and no revenge factor.

Right, as with Breivik, there is a disconnect in the Marathon bombing between the alleged politics and the act itself.

These are good concepts.

I am also beginning to think that even when one can sort of see SOME connection, if we strain our eyes, a lot of bombings of crowds by angry partisans of Chechnya or Sunnis or rightwing white Americans such as Tim McVeigh ---- don't actually make any sense because they accomplish nothing and it is not obvious how they could accomplish anything. I wonder if we don't dignify bombings as "terrorism" simply because they are big events? Just as we dignified the plane-bombing of New York and the Pentagon as an act of war even though bin Laden was not a state actor. I don't disapprove of that -- Jefferson made war on the Algiers pirates -- but I wonder if we aren't confused by a large amount of damage into making it more than madness, inappropriately.

What did Timothy McVeigh accomplish: or even expect to accomplish?

What real good does it do the Sunnis to bomb markets and queues all over Iraq day after day, year after year? It's really not obvious.

So the Chechens hate Russians: fine. But what good to them, besides relief of their feelings, does it do to bomb a large school in Dagestan, or a theater and subway station in Moscow?

It's like the early anarchists: they killed a lot of heads of state and threw bombs into crowds, but then they just dissolved in the world wars and were gone and nothing came of it all.

What I suspect it's really about is availability of modern weapons and explosives. None of this started before dynamite, couldn't. As soon as dynamite became available, bombings of crowds started. As soon as assault rifles and guns became widely owned, mass shootings started.

Madmen like to kill lots and lots of people and will as soon as they can for as long as they can: it may be as simple as that.

 

[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..."

Now that is truly an ignorant post,not to mention hate filled

Do you actually believe those who get rich from selling guns and ammunition care about the victims of any terror that comes from the barrels of their corporate benefactors?

 

[aleks.iv]

Draw conclusions gentlemen Here's an example of how and where teroristy are taken and where to bomb them vseravno where a lot of people and the pressThe United States has become the largest source of corruption in Afghanistan. This was stated by U.S. officials. According to media reports, senior Afghan politicians regularly receive millions of dollars in exchange for maintaining U.S. influence in the country. The details of secret deals with the U.S. Afghanistan - report RT correspondent Gayane Chichakyan.Edition of The New York Times has published statements by U.S. officials that for years the CIA was paying so-called "ghost money," President Karzai's administration. According to the paper, the money from the U.S. intelligence received each month in suitcases, backpacks and plastic bags. The bulk of the funds received warlords and politicians, many of which are related to the drug trade, and some - with the Islamist movement "Taliban".
Afghan President Hamid Karzai confirmed that the money is actually received from the United States in Afghanistan. However, he said it was a small amount that the country received a monthly basis, and spent in accordance with the law. The CIA has not commented on the situation.
According to the U.S. plans, the money had to go to the fight against radical movement "Taliban", but most of it was used to bribe a high-ranking military and government officials. As a result, U.S. policy makers have been forced to admit that their money not only failed to fulfill its tasks, but also became a source of funding corruption and illicit enrichment by Afghan officials.
It is worth noting that the United States - is not the only source of funding for the Afghan authorities. Earlier, the Iranian Foreign Ministry, commenting on assignment for the Karzai administration, said he will continue to direct funds for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, the stability of which is of great importance for Iran.

 

[Circe]

Wow, this site sure gets a lot of foreign government propaganda agents. I saw a North Korean one earlier today and now this one looks like the first-ever Afghan propagandist!

I didn't know they even had any computers in Afghanistan. Probably posting from Britain.