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

[Circe]

I stand corrected on Breivik; I thought he had been picking people off at random but upon further review the camp where he killed 69 was an operation of the Labour Party, so yes that would count as an agenda. And that was after he bombed some government buildings in Oslo, for which he's less remembered.

Sure that's crazy, but the fact that they (not we) thought of it as a way to get their agendas effected, that makes it terrorism-- the purpose.

I've heard that said, that somehow he picked the children's camp on that island (I've looked up the island on Google Maps, very dramatic) as a political thing, but ......what?

I've seen pictures of the children, they were early teens, mostly blond Norweigians like Breivik, it just makes no SENSE.

Nope, I'm hanging in there with crazy. Breivik was no doubt angry about Muslim invasion of Norway, and I don't like Muslim invasion of America, either, but he was just crazy as a hoot owl. Killing a blond children's camp isn't going to stop Muslim immigrations, and nobody sane could possibly think it would.

There are violent group conspiracies to make political changes on the one hand, and then there are violent criminals more or less insane, who really just want to kill, kill, kill, blood, gore, veins in their teeth, not well men. I'm not interested in whether the latter had a political thought in their tiny, shrunken, impaired brains.

We should concentrate on the effective group conspiracies, religious or political. Including any that try to push crazies over the edge one by one, like that American imam in Yemen was doing, with some effect.

I don't know what we can do about the crazies, probably nothing until there are more mental hospitals built to lock them up in when they tell their violent plans to someone beforehand. That's what people used to do with homicidal maniacs and it was a good idea.

 

[Pogo]

I stand corrected on Breivik; I thought he had been picking people off at random but upon further review the camp where he killed 69 was an operation of the Labour Party, so yes that would count as an agenda. And that was after he bombed some government buildings in Oslo, for which he's less remembered.

Sure that's crazy, but the fact that they (not we) thought of it as a way to get their agendas effected, that makes it terrorism-- the purpose.

I've heard that said, that somehow he picked the children's camp on that island (I've looked up the island on Google Maps, very dramatic) as a political thing, but ......what?

I've seen pictures of the children, they were early teens, mostly blond Norweigians like Breivik, it just makes no SENSE.

Nope, I'm hanging in there with crazy. Breivik was no doubt angry about Muslim invasion of Norway, and I don't like Muslim invasion of America, either, but he was just crazy as a hoot owl. Killing a blond children's camp isn't going to stop Muslim immigrations, and nobody sane could possibly think it would.

There are violent group conspiracies to make political changes on the one hand, and then there are violent criminals more or less insane, who really just want to kill, kill, kill, blood, gore, veins in their teeth, not well men. I'm not interested in whether the latter had a political thought in their tiny, shrunken, impaired brains.

We should concentrate on the effective group conspiracies, religious or political. Including any that try to push crazies over the edge one by one, like that American imam in Yemen was doing, with some effect.

I don't know what we can do about the crazies, probably nothing until there are more mental hospitals built to lock them up in when they tell their violent plans to someone beforehand. That's what people used to do with homicidal maniacs and it was a good idea.

I don't see "blond" as significant. 80% of the Norwegian population has either blond hair or blue eyes or both (just a factoid I remember from travelling), so blond was going to be a given. I see the Labour Party connection to that camp as the connection.

Terrorism isn't necessarily about racism. It was with the KKK but it certainly had nothing to do with 9/11 or bombings of abortion clinics or lesbian bars or the building in OKC.

 

[Pogo]

"Having a plan" is not the point, nor is motivation. Having a point is the point.
Again, if we have to ask "why, what was the point?", let alone who did it, then there wasn't one. If they intended terrorism, they either failed or abandoned that plan in favor or random violence. Terrorism by definition is never random. Abortion doctors, lesbian bars, Sikh temples, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, these are all specific targets with specific symbolic meaning. A marathon run just isn't.

"They just hate society" is hoplessly simplistic; that wasn't anybody's agenda. It's as facile as "they hate our freedoms". McVeigh saw overreaching government; Kaczynski saw overreaching technology. They had points, even if their approaches to them were irrational. It's pretty hard to make a case that the Tsarnaevs saw overreaching runners.

I like your thinking, but I want to go farther. What is the point of saying, do they have a point? (I recognize you don't think the Boston bombers did have a point, too incoherent.)

To dignify some act as terrorism, I want to see it have an effective point. To have a real chance to change something. I'm no fan of the 19th century anarchists, but some of their actions did have a point. They wanted a no-hierarchy society. This was stupid and impossible, of course. But they did work toward it --- they had theories (Propaganda of the Deed), they had cabals, cells, and a program of sorts. They had overdetermined politics: Gavrilo Princep was not only an anarchist but was also against Serbia being taken over by Austria when he assassinated the Austrian Archduke, who WAS probably planning to take over Serbia, to be fair ---- boy, that all sure got away from 19-year-old Gavrilo, same age as the Boston bombers, along with the rest of Gavrilo's bomb-throwing gang. He personally started WWI which segued into WWII, 70 million dead on the battlefield alone, parents, do you know what your children are up to right now? That act had a real chance to change things, but nothing our lot of crazy bombers and shooters do has that kind of real political commitment and support (from Serbia, in Gavrilo's case, and then the German military, which decided to run with the ball).

Contrast all that real effect with the delusionals we see right here on this forum: paranoids who think war with Syria is the result of a government plot to bomb the Marathon, or ideas just as crazy.

The human condition includes a whole lot of madness and delusion and a whole lot of eagerness to blow people up and shoot them and see body parts flying around through the air. This is true: we see it every day on the news. "Mad bomber" used to be a term used to describe this sort of routine insanity. There is no use supposing that it's more serious than that sad dysfunction, unless it actually is.

We should probably concentrate on finding the actual effective group conspiracies like al Qaeda and anarchists, if they are serious plotters now, which I doubt, rather than the lone-wolf "mad bombers" whom you never notice till they set off their bombs or their guns.

And maybe focus on TEACHING college students that when they know a mad bomber, the thing to do is to talk to the police about it, NOT try to hide his emptied-out gunpowder containers. Sheeeeeeeesh. To teach kids to take the sane side, not the crazy side.

I just don't see any relevance in whether the point was effective or whether we agree it had merit. It's the terrorists' thinking we're after, not our own. If they see it as a way to drive their point, that's what makes it terrorism. Obviously McVeigh bombing the Murrah building wasn't going to ignite a revolution. But he thought it would.

 

[Pop23]

I think a plan in which a high profile event, one that is covered extensively by the world wide press is "a plan". It is also obvious that they made more bombs than were required for that event, so, at least on face value, they were going to use them some place else. Where that would be is something we may never know.

Bombing a footrace would not help their cause, just as bombing OKC would not help his, or sending bombs via the mail would not help. That is the thinking of rational people. These were not rational. They are motivated by hatred of society, so they bomb society. At least our society.

I think we are finding that the Boston bombers did have political/religious motives.

Yeah, that was my first thought too, that the Boston Marathon is an event that is a worldwide attraction, of course, and that makes it a plausible anti-American attack. They said they were going to go to NYC and bomb Times Square, apparently they thought that one up afterwards, but before they went on a tear with the car, throwing bombs out the window at the police chasing them.

I'm struggling with the concept that there is a lot of craziness around, though the concept of "craziness" needs more work, and that maybe it's not war or crime in any sense of organized killing for a purpose. If somebody or two somebodies throw bombs into a crowd in a way that won't get them anywhere that normal people can consider effective, and DOESN'T get them anywhere, well, why bother calling it terrorism? They're just angry because their father left for Russia or life is going bad or they have schizophrenia or their mom wants to commit them or because they are getting old and nobody takes them seriously even though they have 27 big guns.

None of that leads anywhere. The police shoot them or they kill themselves and that is that. Nothing changes.

There ARE conspiracies: bin Laden. There ARE definite plots to change things: Lenin, for instance, lived in Switzerland for years plotting hopelessly with many socialists to take over Russia, and the Germans, more fool them, decided they would just help him do that to destabilize Russia during WWI and sent him and his friendsies through Germany in a sealed train in 1916 back to Russia: and he did it! He did it! To the great sorrow of all Russia and much of the world for 77 years. Now THAT was a real conspiracy. Compare that to these feckless Boston bombers: they've got nothing! They were worthless wanna-be's with no real purpose beyond a big bang.

I think we've got to start accepting that blowing up or shooting lots of people is simply part of the human condition: there are many, many males who love, LOVE doing this. If we lived in Viking times we would have no doubt of this. We live in soft times, so it surprises us. Surprises me, anyway.

Because it inflicts terror, which is their only intent. They disrupt society by the act, which is the goal.

 

[Pogo]

I think a plan in which a high profile event, one that is covered extensively by the world wide press is "a plan". It is also obvious that they made more bombs than were required for that event, so, at least on face value, they were going to use them some place else. Where that would be is something we may never know.

Bombing a footrace would not help their cause, just as bombing OKC would not help his, or sending bombs via the mail would not help. That is the thinking of rational people. These were not rational. They are motivated by hatred of society, so they bomb society. At least our society.

I think we are finding that the Boston bombers did have political/religious motives.

Yeah, that was my first thought too, that the Boston Marathon is an event that is a worldwide attraction, of course, and that makes it a plausible anti-American attack. They said they were going to go to NYC and bomb Times Square, apparently they thought that one up afterwards, but before they went on a tear with the car, throwing bombs out the window at the police chasing them.

I'm struggling with the concept that there is a lot of craziness around, though the concept of "craziness" needs more work, and that maybe it's not war or crime in any sense of organized killing for a purpose. If somebody or two somebodies throw bombs into a crowd in a way that won't get them anywhere that normal people can consider effective, and DOESN'T get them anywhere, well, why bother calling it terrorism? They're just angry because their father left for Russia or life is going bad or they have schizophrenia or their mom wants to commit them or because they are getting old and nobody takes them seriously even though they have 27 big guns.

None of that leads anywhere. The police shoot them or they kill themselves and that is that. Nothing changes.

There ARE conspiracies: bin Laden. There ARE definite plots to change things: Lenin, for instance, lived in Switzerland for years plotting hopelessly with many socialists to take over Russia, and the Germans, more fool them, decided they would just help him do that to destabilize Russia during WWI and sent him and his friendsies through Germany in a sealed train in 1916 back to Russia: and he did it! He did it! To the great sorrow of all Russia and much of the world for 77 years. Now THAT was a real conspiracy. Compare that to these feckless Boston bombers: they've got nothing! They were worthless wanna-be's with no real purpose beyond a big bang.

I think we've got to start accepting that blowing up or shooting lots of people is simply part of the human condition: there are many, many males who love, LOVE doing this. If we lived in Viking times we would have no doubt of this. We live in soft times, so it surprises us. Surprises me, anyway.

Because it inflicts terror, which is their only intent. They disrupt society by the act, which is the goal.

No, too simplistic. You don't inflict terror, at considerable time, expense, planning and risk of capture or death, for no reason. "Disrupting society" isn't one.

 

[Pop23]

Yeah, that was my first thought too, that the Boston Marathon is an event that is a worldwide attraction, of course, and that makes it a plausible anti-American attack. They said they were going to go to NYC and bomb Times Square, apparently they thought that one up afterwards, but before they went on a tear with the car, throwing bombs out the window at the police chasing them.

I'm struggling with the concept that there is a lot of craziness around, though the concept of "craziness" needs more work, and that maybe it's not war or crime in any sense of organized killing for a purpose. If somebody or two somebodies throw bombs into a crowd in a way that won't get them anywhere that normal people can consider effective, and DOESN'T get them anywhere, well, why bother calling it terrorism? They're just angry because their father left for Russia or life is going bad or they have schizophrenia or their mom wants to commit them or because they are getting old and nobody takes them seriously even though they have 27 big guns.

None of that leads anywhere. The police shoot them or they kill themselves and that is that. Nothing changes.

There ARE conspiracies: bin Laden. There ARE definite plots to change things: Lenin, for instance, lived in Switzerland for years plotting hopelessly with many socialists to take over Russia, and the Germans, more fool them, decided they would just help him do that to destabilize Russia during WWI and sent him and his friendsies through Germany in a sealed train in 1916 back to Russia: and he did it! He did it! To the great sorrow of all Russia and much of the world for 77 years. Now THAT was a real conspiracy. Compare that to these feckless Boston bombers: they've got nothing! They were worthless wanna-be's with no real purpose beyond a big bang.

I think we've got to start accepting that blowing up or shooting lots of people is simply part of the human condition: there are many, many males who love, LOVE doing this. If we lived in Viking times we would have no doubt of this. We live in soft times, so it surprises us. Surprises me, anyway.

Because it inflicts terror, which is their only intent. They disrupt society by the act, which is the goal.

No, too simplistic. You don't inflict terror, at considerable time, expense, planning and risk of capture or death, for no reason. "Disrupting society" isn't one.

No rational thinking human would, but that's not what we are dealing with here. Why not simply have a free kegger, invite a bunch of college friends over, step out for a smoke and detonate the bomb. You would have a likely better kill rate, but no cameras to show the results instantly and world wide.

In that you have the difference between a criminal act and an act of terrorism.

 

[Circe]

Because it inflicts terror, which is their only intent. They disrupt society by the act, which is the goal.

If so, it's a pointless goal, since the disruption lasts only a few days. How many of us can remember WHICH American president the early anarchists assassinated? I'd have to look it up myself. What did Timothy McVeigh change? Nothing.

No, if an action is not effective and no reasonable person could expect it to be an effective change agent, it's just madman crap, IMO. We don't even know what most of them want, if they want anything. Look at Adam Lanza, killed all those children but carefully hid his motive so we wouldn't know why.

Now talk about a change agent, 9/11 was that. That was the real deal.

 

[Pop23]

Because it inflicts terror, which is their only intent. They disrupt society by the act, which is the goal.

If so, it's a pointless goal, since the disruption lasts only a few days. How many of us can remember WHICH American president the early anarchists assassinated? I'd have to look it up myself. What did Timothy McVeigh change? Nothing.

No, if an action is not effective and no reasonable person could expect it to be an effective change agent, it's just madman crap, IMO. We don't even know what most of them want, if they want anything. Look at Adam Lanza, killed all those children but carefully hid his motive so we wouldn't know why.

Now talk about a change agent, 9/11 was that. That was the real deal.

McVeigh changed nothing?

Try getting into a Federal Building anymore without going through a metal detector, or being watched by armed guards.

These people created havoc where none previously existed.

Police used to be at large events, mainly to look for drunks and for crowd control, now those are way down the list.

It may be simplistic, but terrorism is simplistic. No degree required.

 

[Circe]

I just don't see any relevance in whether the point was effective or whether we agree it had merit. It's the terrorists' thinking we're after, not our own. If they see it as a way to drive their point, that's what makes it terrorism. Obviously McVeigh bombing the Murrah building wasn't going to ignite a revolution. But he thought it would.

That's an interesting perspective!

But I don't see the point in taking the bombers' perspective. It's our perspective that matters: the bombers are dead or in jail. And there are more of us.

I don't have any respect for crazy perspectives. I see completely off-the-wall, out-in-orbit perspectives all the time from delusionals on forums: I guess they can't work and have nothing else to do, so they come here and promulgate nutso conspiracy ideas from their mothers' basements. These are not well men.

It's not important to consider their insane ideas! It's important to lump them into a useful and true category, like --- these are crazy forum delusionals who are here because they have nothing else to do, too impaired mentally. And one should take care to sort them out and discard them quickly so time isn't wasted. And I do that.

Same with the mad bombers. It doesn't matter what silly political shape their angers and father-abandonment fears took, it matters that we can categorize them usefully so we can deal with preventing their carnage and amputations better.

No, I don't want to take their perspective. I just want them dead.

 

[Circe]

McVeigh changed nothing?

Try getting into a Federel Building anymore without going through a metal detector, or being watched by armed guards.

These people created havoc where none previously existed.

Police used to be at large events, mainly to look for drunks and for crowd control, now those are way down the list.

It may be simplistic, but terrorism is simplistic. No degree required.

Well, darn, you do have some good points!!

The panty bomber resulted in the hated TSA; the sneaker bomber resulted in everyone having to take their shoes off in dirty airports, horrible.

McVeigh prevented me from buying my yearly bag or two of ammonium nitrate at the feed store for gardening --- I sure was surprised when they said I had to have a "number" now, after his bombing.

Okay, given, all this snoop, snoop, watch, watch change, which is terrible. But is this what they were trying to achieve??? Of course not! Lenin was trying for communist takeover of the Russian State; he'd have been pretty sad to see only people having to go barefoot in public transport sites as a result of his efforts.

New surveillance tactics are not what ANY of the crazies are trying to achieve, so I'd say the results are counterproductive, whatever their nutso ideas may have been, they didn't get what they wanted, if they wanted anything but a big power experience.

Which is what I think. Like the anarchist who killed the Empress Elizabeth in 1898. In the photo of him in custody, that was one happy guy! He looked like a fluffed-up bantam fighting cock. Hanged himself later, though. Whatever he pretended he wanted, killing an elderly woman didn't get it for him. He just wanted the thrill of violence and power and lots of attention. He killed himself after they took away his "Memoirs" and destroyed them. Nobody wanted to give him any more attention; that was all he was after, really.


I am not seeing the connection between the bombers' political perspective, whatever it is, and the increased surveillance and general inconvenience we go through because of them? That wasn't what they were after, surely.

 

[Oldstyle]

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 logic in your argument escapes me. It's not terrorism because the target wasn't political? The "target" was a large crowd of Bostonians. The Boston Marathon isn't just about running a race...it's more of a yearly celebration of the end of winter in New England. If you lived in the area you'd understand that. The choice of that venue was made because they knew that it would be a large crowd and that detonating bombs there would kill or maim hundreds of people. It was done to make a statement and that statement is that we are not safe walking the streets in our cities. You can't GET much more political than that! It's the very same technique terrorists have employed against Israel for decades. They bomb restaurants, movie theaters, busses and malls. They do so to attempt to intimidate ordinary citizens. That's what the Boston bombings were all about...they were an attempt to intimidate.

 

[Pop23]

McVeigh changed nothing?

Try getting into a Federel Building anymore without going through a metal detector, or being watched by armed guards.

These people created havoc where none previously existed.

Police used to be at large events, mainly to look for drunks and for crowd control, now those are way down the list.

It may be simplistic, but terrorism is simplistic. No degree required.

Well, darn, you do have some good points!!

The panty bomber resulted in the hated TSA; the sneaker bomber resulted in everyone having to take their shoes off in dirty airports, horrible.

McVeigh prevented me from buying my yearly bag or two of ammonium nitrate at the feed store for gardening --- I sure was surprised when they said I had to have a "number" now, after his bombing.

Okay, given, all this snoop, snoop, watch, watch change, which is terrible. But is this what they were trying to achieve??? Of course not! Lenin was trying for communist takeover of the Russian State; he'd have been pretty sad to see only people having to go barefoot in public transport sites as a result of his efforts.

New surveillance tactics are not what ANY of the crazies are trying to achieve, so I'd say the results are counterproductive, whatever their nutso ideas may have been, they didn't get what they wanted, if they wanted anything but a big power experience.

Which is what I think. Like the anarchist who killed the Empress Elizabeth in 1898. In the photo of him in custody, that was one happy guy! He looked like a fluffed-up bantam fighting cock. Hanged himself later, though. Whatever he pretended he wanted, killing an elderly woman didn't get it for him. He just wanted the thrill of violence and power and lots of attention. He killed himself after they took away his "Memoirs" and destroyed them. Nobody wanted to give him any more attention; that was all he was after, really.


I am not seeing the connection between the bombers' political perspective, whatever it is, and the increased surveillance and general inconvenience we go through because of them? That wasn't what they were after, surely.

So, instead of an act of Congress to achieve you removing your shoes at an airport, or being frisked or any of the dozens and dozens of liberties that are being infringed on, these people simply blow something, or somebody up.

The effect is that they need no political party, no fundraising, no thirty second adds on the Superbowl, just a dupe willing to blow people up.

I'd say they have been rather effective in changing society, which is their goal. Take our freedoms away one at a time until there are none left. And at the cost of a lot fewer "soldiers" then any other war ever waged.

 

[Pogo]

Because it inflicts terror, which is their only intent. They disrupt society by the act, which is the goal.

No, too simplistic. You don't inflict terror, at considerable time, expense, planning and risk of capture or death, for no reason. "Disrupting society" isn't one.

No rational thinking human would, but that's not what we are dealing with here. Why not simply have a free kegger, invite a bunch of college friends over, step out for a smoke and detonate the bomb. You would have a likely better kill rate, but no cameras to show the results instantly and world wide.

In that you have the difference between a criminal act and an act of terrorism.

What you're describing is a quest for publicity, not necessarily a point behind it. If the point is nothing more than attention, then there's no coercion to be had -- because the perp hasn't presented a message of "stop doing this and the terror stops". Disrupting society or a kill rate doesn't in itself have a goal connected to it; disrupting society or achieving a kill rate because you hate US power, or because you hate abortions, or because you hate technology, that's the traditional definition of terrorism.

This used to be the normal definition until a few weeks ago when news media found out they could get more attention/readers/viewers/advertising dollars by describing Boston as "Terrorism". It sells.

 

[Circe]

So, instead of an act of Congress to achieve you removing your shoes at an airport, or being frisked or any of the dozens and dozens of liberties that are being infringed on, these people simply blow something, or somebody up.

The effect is that they need no political party, no fundraising, no thirty second adds on the Superbowl, just a dupe willing to blow people up.

I'd say they have been rather effective in changing society, which is their goal. Take our freedoms away one at a time until there are none left. And at the cost of a lot fewer "soldiers" then any other war ever waged.

I don't believe for a minute that this was the intent of ANY of the shooters or mad bombers, any of them anywhere.

However, I agree with you that this has been the result.

Unintended consequences, our old friend.



I'm not for fascist TSA, but I am for more and more and more security cameras and CCTV everywhere, and lots and lots of DNA testing, preferably starting at birth: a complete catalog of the entire population. None of that bothers anyone about their normal business.

Boy, that would wrap up the serial killer problem fast.

 

[Circe]

What you're describing is a quest for publicity, not necessarily a point behind it. If the point is nothing more than attention, then there's no coercion to be had.

Yes...publicity and attention wanted very badly, like the strutting anarchist I described who killed the Empress. They want the thrill of power AND they want attention, often.

But if they try to conceal who they are, all they get is attention to the deed, not to themselves, and so may try again, as the Boston bombers were planning and did prematurely in Cambridge.

I don't think this is about politics in ANY case we see here since 9/11. It's about personal needs specific to some males, like a need to feel powerful, a need for violence, a need for attention, maybe a need for respect, not that they'll ever get that. It's personal, not political.

 

[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 logic in your argument escapes me. It's not terrorism because the target wasn't political? The "target" was a large crowd of Bostonians. The Boston Marathon isn't just about running a race...it's more of a yearly celebration of the end of winter in New England. If you lived in the area you'd understand that. The choice of that venue was made because they knew that it would be a large crowd and that detonating bombs there would kill or maim hundreds of people. It was done to make a statement and that statement is that we are not safe walking the streets in our cities. You can't GET much more political than that! It's the very same technique terrorists have employed against Israel for decades. They bomb restaurants, movie theaters, busses and malls. They do so to attempt to intimidate ordinary citizens. That's what the Boston bombings were all about...they were an attempt to intimidate.

Actually I have lived in that area, and I do understand they chose a spot that would have a crowd as well as publicity. I just don't see them expressing a reason for doing it. The fact that we had to guess (and are still guessing) what it was supposed to mean --if indeed it means anything-- and even who they were, confirms that lack of message. When the World Trade Center was hit, or when George Tiller was shot in his church, we knew immediately what the act meant. And in the case of what looks like a random act, a real terrorist network will jump up and take responsibility for it, giving us a reasoning.

These guys did neither of those; the Boston marathon has a public gathering but it's not related in any way to politics, wars, Chechnya, religion or anything else. And not only did they not take responsibility, they did the opposite: they ran and had to be tracked down.

An attempt to intimidate? OK, but for intimidate who, from doing what? What's missing here is a message.

 

[beagle9]

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

After reading this, in my opinion you are a threat to America, and you are an anti-American, and you need to take (self deport) the next boat or plane out of here.. That's my opinion like it or not..

 

[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 logic in your argument escapes me. It's not terrorism because the target wasn't political? The "target" was a large crowd of Bostonians. The Boston Marathon isn't just about running a race...it's more of a yearly celebration of the end of winter in New England. If you lived in the area you'd understand that. The choice of that venue was made because they knew that it would be a large crowd and that detonating bombs there would kill or maim hundreds of people. It was done to make a statement and that statement is that we are not safe walking the streets in our cities. You can't GET much more political than that! It's the very same technique terrorists have employed against Israel for decades. They bomb restaurants, movie theaters, busses and malls. They do so to attempt to intimidate ordinary citizens. That's what the Boston bombings were all about...they were an attempt to intimidate.

Actually I have lived in that area, and I do understand they chose a spot that would have a crowd as well as publicity. I just don't see them expressing a reason for doing it. The fact that we had to guess (and are still guessing) what it was supposed to mean --if indeed it means anything-- and even who they were, confirms that lack of message. When the World Trade Center was hit, or when George Tiller was shot in his church, we knew immediately what the act meant. And in the case of what looks like a random act, a real terrorist network will jump up and take responsibility for it, giving us a reasoning.

These guys did neither of those; the Boston marathon has a public gathering but it's not related in any way to politics, wars, Chechnya, religion or anything else. And not only did they not take responsibility, they did the opposite: they ran and had to be tracked down.

An attempt to intimidate? OK, but for intimidate who, from doing what? What's missing here is a message.

Trying to be smart by suggesting that it has to be related somehow to the marathon itself, when in fact it doesn't have to have anything to do with the marathon, only that the intent was to cause as much pain and suffering as possible in the choosing of the target in which they chose. Now what links them to the religion and the terrorism part of it, are their tactics, tools and many other things that the FBI has investigated, and for which will be concluded in the final, so yes Liberals are trying to defend the indefensible on this thread, and that is just soooo sad in the faces of the victims pain and loses in which they incurred since, and/or as a result of.

 

[beagle9]

Remember this has happened on Obama's watch, so of course the libs will try everything they can now to change the meaning of terrorist acts or terrorism, because they have to save face for voting Obama into office as a leftist lib in which they figured that he was (hec, he may be something other than that actually, who knows), because he seems to be just riding the waves being created as they toss and turn him around and about, but dominant liberalism is the very definition of extreme weakness (IMHO), and this be it within and through out this nation, where as when we have a better balancing of power in charge, then liberalism is cloaked within that power yet does not dominate it, but when they control anything to much, then we are all in trouble in this nation, and it is showing big time.

 

[Circe]

These guys did neither of those; the Boston marathon has a public gathering but it's not related in any way to politics, wars, Chechnya, religion or anything else. And not only did they not take responsibility, they did the opposite: they ran and had to be tracked down.

An attempt to intimidate? OK, but for intimidate who, from doing what? What's missing here is a message.

I think it's love of killing people, a staple in the human condition, especially among males. Killing or destroying as best you can people you don't like has forever been a major, major motivation and still is, just look at any edition of Google news or any newspapaper. People kill their children, their wives, their neighbors, the police, everybody they can. If they can't kill them, they injure them, banish them, fire them, destroy them emotionally.

Since dynamite was invented, and gunpowder, it's easy to kill lots of strangers, too, so they do. Men love to kill and need little excuse. Wouldn't any of us destroy most of Group X (choose whatever group you hate) if there were a button you could push and nobody would know? What they need is strong government and custom to keep them from killing, and we're not in a good place that way at this time, obviously.

As for why the Marathon, I note that the older leader -stan guy failed at getting employment and failed at boxing: he just failed all around in what the Marathon runners succeeded at spectacularly. They were pretty much all well off and successful amateur athletes. So he hated them and destroyed them, perhaps, from envy.

Envy. HUGE human motivation to destroy others.