Media Matters declares victory

[daveman]

Bullshit. Terrorism sends its message by itself -- it doesn't depend on some later police/FBI investigation. If it did it would never work.

Terrorism isn't simply for the sake of terror. That's simple sadism. Terrorism's raison d'être is to convey a message. If a terrorist has no message to convey, then the act never happens -- because there's no point in doing it. And no, they're in no way "random" except as regards who the victims are. The act itself is planned, calculated and engineered specifically to make a statement to the general public. Without the statement ... there is simply no point. And without a point, it's not terrorism.

The Badenov Brothers may have had a motive. But what they didn't have is a message. No message; no terrorism. Perhaps they might have intended to plan an act of terrorism. If they did, they fucked up, because they failed to accomplish it. At most you have some abstract perceived revenge. You don't have terrorism.

Eric Rudolph didn't fail. Tim McVeigh didn't fail. Al Qaeda didn't fail. The messages were obvious and immediate, which is what they're supposed to be. You're not sending a message when you have to depend on a third party who's not even a participant to get the word out two weeks later.

As if a third party could be a reliable source to convey that message anyway.
Terrorism ALWAYS controls the message. When Ted Kaczynski put out his manifesto he didn't just jot down notes and tell the press "tell this in your own words" -- he demanded that it be printed verbatim, in his words. Again, controlling the message is vital. It's the whole point.

Terrorism is at base a political statement. You haven't made a statement by simply holding some belief and then not telling anybody what it is.

So your stretch here is absurd.

Was this message immediate -- three years after the fact?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/30osamaCND.html

Bin Laden Takes Responsibility for 9/11 Attacks in New Tape

By MARIA NEWMAN

Published: October 29, 2004

Osama bin Laden said for the first time that he ordered the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to a videotape made public today, and he accused President Bush of "misleading the American people" about the attacks.​

That's not adding up. How are we to have been "misled" if it was pinned on Al Qaeda immediately after the event? I don't get it.

Off the point anyway; the criterion isn't "who done it" but what the message is. When you have hijacked airliners flying into the soaring symbol of capitalism and the center of military operations, you don't need to ask what the reasoning for the target was. Those are highly symbolic targets. The relevance is obvious. And yes, immediate. When Flight 11 hit the North Tower we had an incident that looked accidental. When the second one hit the other tower -- we knew.

When on the other hand you have bombs going off at a foot race ..............

There is no way to equate the two.

Don't move the goalposts here. You claimed it can't be terrorism if the terrorists don't leave an immediate message.

bin Laden didn't take credit for 9/11 for THREE YEARS. That's not immediate. You never said anything about who it's blamed on; your criteria were an immediate message from the terrorists.

Was 9/11 terrorism?

 

[Pogo]

But it does have to have a point. And if the point has to be ferreted out and explained later on, and possibly never, then that is not making a point. We would all have to be mindreaders to get it. Doesn't work.

Your logic is fatally simplistic, considering only the background and beliefs of the perpetrator. By that logic every murder, rape, robbery, purse snatching, mugging, forgery or jaywalking incident becomes another Muslim terrorism and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's bullshit. Terrorism is done to send a message, an immediate and visceral one. If that message is not present, then neither is terrorism, by definition. Sorry but we can't just toss the word "terrorism" out willy-nilly to describe everything.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

You can't intimidate when you don't have a message.

So CNN was right to not say that, and your link is simply wrong. It's demagoguery put out to sell ads.

What was the obvious message behind the Oklahoma City bombing and did anyone know before McVeigh was caught?

this is one of the holes in his argument.

And in what way is this a "hole"? Merely saying so doesn't make it so.

 

[Pogo]

What was the obvious message behind the Oklahoma City bombing and did anyone know before McVeigh was caught?

Think about it: what was bombed? A federal building. Immediately obvious, before McVeigh was tracked down, was that it was a strike against the government. Indeed there were rumours and assumptions bandied about that it was Islamic terrorism, until the perp was apprehended. Which, according to Mudwhistle's logic of assuming that motive behind every crime, would make sense.

So we immediately knew it was terrorism; it took time to find out who did it.

We immediately knew the bombing in Boston was terrorism. It didn't matter at the time who did it, because it was clear the purpose was to kill or maim innocent civilians. Then later we discovered that a couple of Chechnyan brothers carried it out......the message was obvious. You just don't agree it was a message of any kind.

Sorry, that's entirely wishful thinking and historical revision. All we knew was that bombs had gone off. "Terrorism" wasn't applied until much later, and then only by partisans trying to make fear points (which of course sells papers). So your original point that CNN was "not honest" by failing to call it terrorism shoots itself in the foot. What CNN was guilty of was not milking the opportunity to spike its ratings by selling fear. But as the ratings tell us, they're not the most astute at figuring out there's gold in them thar ills.

Unfortunately terrorism isn't the only explanation for an event like that; there are assholes psychopaths who will commit random violence on random people, with no political message at all. Does the name Adam Lanza not ring a bell? Was that terrorism? No. Why not? No message. Same thing.

Had the target been a military base, or an abortion clinic, the message would have been self-explanatory. I ask again, to the same anticipated crickets: what's the message in bombing a foot race? "Walk don't run"? Without a message and as well absent any public missive assigning a motive, we don't have an act of terrorism. We have random violence by psychopathic assholes.

Are we to consider suicide bombings in Israeli buses and restaurants to be simply a crime? Or bombs set off in train stations in London or France?

Boston was not a suicide bombing. A suicide bombing is obviously a political act on that aspect alone. Israel and London are places used to terrorism anyway. I don't know what you refer to in France.

You say to yourself that a building in NYC represents Capitalism and is a valid target, but an annual event in Boston isn't. That makes no sense at all. You're ignoring the facts that are right in front of your eyes because of some slanted mindset.

Once again for the eighth time: what does a foot race represent?

We know what the Pentagon represents.
We know what the World Trade Center represented.
We know what an abortion clinic represents.
We know what a lesbian bar represents.
We know what a federal building represents.

Then there's the Boston Marathon ......

 

[Pogo]

Nobody ever got MSNBC's shitty ratings by being honest or competent.

Unfortunately (for the viewing public), neither honest nor competent nor fair nor balanced gets ratings. And you'll note those are all positive traits.

Positive doesn't sell. Negative does. Panic sells. Controversy and scandal and fear and loathing are what sell. That's why we complain the news is all bad --- by our buying habits, that's what we want.

If this were not the case, WWE and Maury Povich and Doctor Fucking Phil would never be considered for TV, and your local Fraction News wouldn't skip the tax resolution your city council passed in favor of a fire at some apartment building you never heard of. Because fire sells, and tax resolutions do not.

Which is why Fox Noise came on with the model it did -- rather than the expense of flying a lot of reporters hither and yon reporting the news, plunk some talking heads in a garishly colored studio, make sure half of them wear short skirts, and have them talk about the news rather than report it. Then have suggestive chyrons running across the screen while graphics change scenes with a whooooshh. This is all emotional candy to sell you a product -- not an attempt to report news.

Make no mistake, that's what Fox and its followers are selling. Because emotion sells; news does not. Report a story with detached objective disinterest-- feh. Have an angry man pound his fist on the table about it -- huzzah, now you have an audience.

Wow, so that's what it feels like to be on topic...

I think a large part of the problem is some people can't tell the difference between news shows and analysis shows.

One's fact, the other's opinion.

Glad I could help.

Thanks. And opinion sells while news does not. That's why the talking heads are always on prime time. It's where they make the most money.

I think I already said this, but it's a welcome relief to be back on topic. However briefly.

 

[Pogo]

You seem to be incorrect.

Boston Bomb Defendant Cited Muslims? Deaths, U.S. Says - Bloomberg

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the accused Boston Marathon bomber, was charged by a grand jury with setting off homemade bombs that killed three spectators and then shooting a university police officer to death.

The indictment filed yesterday in federal court in Boston offers new details about the April 15 attack, including a list of files related to al-Qaeda and jihad found on Tsarnaev’s computer. He also allegedly wrote notes saying he was motivated by the U.S. military’s killing of Muslim civilians and that he didn’t want “such evil” to go unpunished.​

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/u...d=2&adxnnlx=1387242188-9K2lNLwqwwwMimWRRpDMGw

Elmirza Khozhugov, 26, the ex-husband of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s younger sister, Ailina, said that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been enamored of conspiracy theories, and that he was also concerned by the wars in the Middle East.

“He was looking for connections between the wars in the Middle East and oppression of Muslim population around the globe,” Mr. Khozhugov said in an e-mail. “It was very hard to argue with him on themes somehow connected to religion. On the other hand, he did not hate Christians. He respected their faith. Never said anything bad about other religions. But he was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.”​

Blowing up people probably isn't the best way to counteract that picture.

Yeah yeah. These are all internal thoughts. You don't have terrorism until they go external. What you have there at the most is an act of vengeance. Acts of vengeance are not terrorism, and vice versa.

Analogy used before:
Joe Green shoots Joe Blue because he hates Blue people. That's not terrorism. Internal.
Joe Green blows up Blue People Church to drive them out of town: that's terrorism. External.

(/offtopic)

And yet, oddly, the Boston Marathon bombing is still undeniably terrorism.

Not undeniable at all. I've been doing it as a tangent here without breaking a sweat.
Feel free to assume the burden of proof. You'll need something stronger than the word "undeniably".

 

[Pogo]

Was this message immediate -- three years after the fact?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/30osamaCND.html

Bin Laden Takes Responsibility for 9/11 Attacks in New Tape

By MARIA NEWMAN

Published: October 29, 2004

Osama bin Laden said for the first time that he ordered the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to a videotape made public today, and he accused President Bush of "misleading the American people" about the attacks.​

That's not adding up. How are we to have been "misled" if it was pinned on Al Qaeda immediately after the event? I don't get it.

Off the point anyway; the criterion isn't "who done it" but what the message is. When you have hijacked airliners flying into the soaring symbol of capitalism and the center of military operations, you don't need to ask what the reasoning for the target was. Those are highly symbolic targets. The relevance is obvious. And yes, immediate. When Flight 11 hit the North Tower we had an incident that looked accidental. When the second one hit the other tower -- we knew.

When on the other hand you have bombs going off at a foot race ..............

There is no way to equate the two.

Don't move the goalposts here. You claimed it can't be terrorism if the terrorists don't leave an immediate message.

bin Laden didn't take credit for 9/11 for THREE YEARS. That's not immediate. You never said anything about who it's blamed on; your criteria were an immediate message from the terrorists.

Was 9/11 terrorism?

Of course it was, and we already did this. Let's rewind: when the first plane hit the WTC, we figured it was some kind of accident and were groping for answers. When the second plane hit seventeen minutes later, probabilities of coincidence went out the window and we all knew we were under attack. I remember every moment of that day vividly, as I was myself getting ready for a flight, and had a best friend working for American Airlines in Boston, who sat and had breakfast with the crew of Flight 11 and saw the hijackers in the terminal. But I digress.

WHO DID IT was irrelevant to the fact that we were under attack, so Bin Laden releasing a statement three years later is a little like Pete Rose finally admitting he gambled on ball games. Everybody already knew, and that was established within I believe the same day (GWB already had the PDB of a month earlier warning of Bin Laden's plans, for one thing).

The moment the second plane hit, we knew terrorism was going on because we knew it was deliberate. That along with the targets selected made the definition obvious.

No goalposts were harmed or moved in the production of this post.

 

[asterism]

But it does have to have a point. And if the point has to be ferreted out and explained later on, and possibly never, then that is not making a point. We would all have to be mindreaders to get it. Doesn't work.

Your logic is fatally simplistic, considering only the background and beliefs of the perpetrator. By that logic every murder, rape, robbery, purse snatching, mugging, forgery or jaywalking incident becomes another Muslim terrorism and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's bullshit. Terrorism is done to send a message, an immediate and visceral one. If that message is not present, then neither is terrorism, by definition. Sorry but we can't just toss the word "terrorism" out willy-nilly to describe everything.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

You can't intimidate when you don't have a message.

So CNN was right to not say that, and your link is simply wrong. It's demagoguery put out to sell ads.

What was the obvious message behind the Oklahoma City bombing and did anyone know before McVeigh was caught?

Think about it: what was bombed? A federal building. Immediately obvious, before McVeigh was tracked down, was that it was a strike against the government. Indeed there were rumours and assumptions bandied about that it was Islamic terrorism, until the perp was apprehended. Which, according to Mudwhistle's logic of assuming that motive behind every crime, would make sense.

So we immediately knew it was terrorism; it took time to find out who did it.

So it was terrorism because a federal building was bombed but it wasn't terrorism because a large spectator event was bombed?

I'm not following the logic.

A Spanish train station was bombed in 2004. What was that?

 

[Pogo]

What was the obvious message behind the Oklahoma City bombing and did anyone know before McVeigh was caught?

Think about it: what was bombed? A federal building. Immediately obvious, before McVeigh was tracked down, was that it was a strike against the government. Indeed there were rumours and assumptions bandied about that it was Islamic terrorism, until the perp was apprehended. Which, according to Mudwhistle's logic of assuming that motive behind every crime, would make sense.

So we immediately knew it was terrorism; it took time to find out who did it.

So it was terrorism because a federal building was bombed but it wasn't terrorism because a large spectator event was bombed?

I'm not following the logic.

A Spanish station was bombed in 2007. What was that?

"A Spanish station"?
No idea what the fuck you're talking about. Radio station? Train station?

A federal building represents the federal government. A foot race represents what?

 

[daveman]

Unfortunately (for the viewing public), neither honest nor competent nor fair nor balanced gets ratings. And you'll note those are all positive traits.

Positive doesn't sell. Negative does. Panic sells. Controversy and scandal and fear and loathing are what sell. That's why we complain the news is all bad --- by our buying habits, that's what we want.

If this were not the case, WWE and Maury Povich and Doctor Fucking Phil would never be considered for TV, and your local Fraction News wouldn't skip the tax resolution your city council passed in favor of a fire at some apartment building you never heard of. Because fire sells, and tax resolutions do not.

Which is why Fox Noise came on with the model it did -- rather than the expense of flying a lot of reporters hither and yon reporting the news, plunk some talking heads in a garishly colored studio, make sure half of them wear short skirts, and have them talk about the news rather than report it. Then have suggestive chyrons running across the screen while graphics change scenes with a whooooshh. This is all emotional candy to sell you a product -- not an attempt to report news.

Make no mistake, that's what Fox and its followers are selling. Because emotion sells; news does not. Report a story with detached objective disinterest-- feh. Have an angry man pound his fist on the table about it -- huzzah, now you have an audience.

Wow, so that's what it feels like to be on topic...

I think a large part of the problem is some people can't tell the difference between news shows and analysis shows.

One's fact, the other's opinion.

Glad I could help.

Thanks. And opinion sells while news does not. That's why the talking heads are always on prime time. It's where they make the most money.

I think I already said this, but it's a welcome relief to be back on topic. However briefly.

Yeah. It's amazing the number of irrational Fox News haters who can't tell the difference, innit?

 

[daveman]

Yeah yeah. These are all internal thoughts. You don't have terrorism until they go external. What you have there at the most is an act of vengeance. Acts of vengeance are not terrorism, and vice versa.

Analogy used before:
Joe Green shoots Joe Blue because he hates Blue people. That's not terrorism. Internal.
Joe Green blows up Blue People Church to drive them out of town: that's terrorism. External.

(/offtopic)

And yet, oddly, the Boston Marathon bombing is still undeniably terrorism.

Not undeniable at all. I've been doing it as a tangent here without breaking a sweat.
Feel free to assume the burden of proof. You'll need something stronger than the word "undeniably".

Not really seeing the point in bothering, actually.

 

[daveman]

That's not adding up. How are we to have been "misled" if it was pinned on Al Qaeda immediately after the event? I don't get it.

Off the point anyway; the criterion isn't "who done it" but what the message is. When you have hijacked airliners flying into the soaring symbol of capitalism and the center of military operations, you don't need to ask what the reasoning for the target was. Those are highly symbolic targets. The relevance is obvious. And yes, immediate. When Flight 11 hit the North Tower we had an incident that looked accidental. When the second one hit the other tower -- we knew.

When on the other hand you have bombs going off at a foot race ..............

There is no way to equate the two.

Don't move the goalposts here. You claimed it can't be terrorism if the terrorists don't leave an immediate message.

bin Laden didn't take credit for 9/11 for THREE YEARS. That's not immediate. You never said anything about who it's blamed on; your criteria were an immediate message from the terrorists.

Was 9/11 terrorism?

Of course it was, and we already did this. Let's rewind: when the first plane hit the WTC, we figured it was some kind of accident and were groping for answers. When the second plane hit seventeen minutes later, probabilities of coincidence went out the window and we all knew we were under attack. I remember every moment of that day vividly, as I was myself getting ready for a flight, and had a best friend working for American Airlines in Boston, who sat and had breakfast with the crew of Flight 11 and saw the hijackers in the terminal. But I digress.

WHO DID IT was irrelevant to the fact that we were under attack, so Bin Laden releasing a statement three years later is a little like Pete Rose finally admitting he gambled on ball games. Everybody already knew, and that was established within I believe the same day (GWB already had the PDB of a month earlier warning of Bin Laden's plans, for one thing).

The moment the second plane hit, we knew terrorism was going on because we knew it was deliberate. That along with the targets selected made the definition obvious.

No goalposts were harmed or moved in the production of this post.

I disagree. Goalposts were moved to a different time zone.

 

[asterism]

Think about it: what was bombed? A federal building. Immediately obvious, before McVeigh was tracked down, was that it was a strike against the government. Indeed there were rumours and assumptions bandied about that it was Islamic terrorism, until the perp was apprehended. Which, according to Mudwhistle's logic of assuming that motive behind every crime, would make sense.

So we immediately knew it was terrorism; it took time to find out who did it.

We immediately knew the bombing in Boston was terrorism. It didn't matter at the time who did it, because it was clear the purpose was to kill or maim innocent civilians. Then later we discovered that a couple of Chechnyan brothers carried it out......the message was obvious. You just don't agree it was a message of any kind.

Sorry, that's entirely wishful thinking and historical revision. All we knew was that bombs had gone off. "Terrorism" wasn't applied until much later, and then only by partisans trying to make fear points (which of course sells papers). So your original point that CNN was "not honest" by failing to call it terrorism shoots itself in the foot. What CNN was guilty of was not milking the opportunity to spike its ratings by selling fear. But as the ratings tell us, they're not the most astute at figuring out there's gold in them thar ills.

Unfortunately terrorism isn't the only explanation for an event like that; there are assholes psychopaths who will commit random violence on random people, with no political message at all. Does the name Adam Lanza not ring a bell? Was that terrorism? No. Why not? No message. Same thing.

Had the target been a military base, or an abortion clinic, the message would have been self-explanatory. I ask again, to the same anticipated crickets: what's the message in bombing a foot race? "Walk don't run"? Without a message and as well absent any public missive assigning a motive, we don't have an act of terrorism. We have random violence by psychopathic assholes.

Are we to consider suicide bombings in Israeli buses and restaurants to be simply a crime? Or bombs set off in train stations in London or France?

Boston was not a suicide bombing. A suicide bombing is obviously a political act on that aspect alone. Israel and London are places used to terrorism anyway. I don't know what you refer to in France.

You say to yourself that a building in NYC represents Capitalism and is a valid target, but an annual event in Boston isn't. That makes no sense at all. You're ignoring the facts that are right in front of your eyes because of some slanted mindset.

Once again for the eighth time: what does a foot race represent?

We know what the Pentagon represents.
We know what the World Trade Center represented.
We know what an abortion clinic represents.
We know what a lesbian bar represents.
We know what a federal building represents.

Then there's the Boston Marathon ......

What did the 1996 Olympics represent? What did Pan Am flight 103 represent? Your logic doesn't work here.

 

[asterism]

Think about it: what was bombed? A federal building. Immediately obvious, before McVeigh was tracked down, was that it was a strike against the government. Indeed there were rumours and assumptions bandied about that it was Islamic terrorism, until the perp was apprehended. Which, according to Mudwhistle's logic of assuming that motive behind every crime, would make sense.

So we immediately knew it was terrorism; it took time to find out who did it.

So it was terrorism because a federal building was bombed but it wasn't terrorism because a large spectator event was bombed?

I'm not following the logic.

A Spanish station was bombed in 2007. What was that?

"A Spanish station"?
No idea what the fuck you're talking about. Radio station? Train station?

A federal building represents the federal government. A foot race represents what?

Spanish train station.

 

[mudwhistle]

Think about it: what was bombed? A federal building. Immediately obvious, before McVeigh was tracked down, was that it was a strike against the government. Indeed there were rumours and assumptions bandied about that it was Islamic terrorism, until the perp was apprehended. Which, according to Mudwhistle's logic of assuming that motive behind every crime, would make sense.

So we immediately knew it was terrorism; it took time to find out who did it.

We immediately knew the bombing in Boston was terrorism. It didn't matter at the time who did it, because it was clear the purpose was to kill or maim innocent civilians. Then later we discovered that a couple of Chechnyan brothers carried it out......the message was obvious. You just don't agree it was a message of any kind.

Sorry, that's entirely wishful thinking and historical revision. All we knew was that bombs had gone off. "Terrorism" wasn't applied until much later, and then only by partisans trying to make fear points (which of course sells papers). So your original point that CNN was "not honest" by failing to call it terrorism shoots itself in the foot. What CNN was guilty of was not milking the opportunity to spike its ratings by selling fear. But as the ratings tell us, they're not the most astute at figuring out there's gold in them thar ills.

Unfortunately terrorism isn't the only explanation for an event like that; there are assholes psychopaths who will commit random violence on random people, with no political message at all. Does the name Adam Lanza not ring a bell? Was that terrorism? No. Why not? No message. Same thing.

Had the target been a military base, or an abortion clinic, the message would have been self-explanatory. I ask again, to the same anticipated crickets: what's the message in bombing a foot race? "Walk don't run"? Without a message and as well absent any public missive assigning a motive, we don't have an act of terrorism. We have random violence by psychopathic assholes.

Are we to consider suicide bombings in Israeli buses and restaurants to be simply a crime? Or bombs set off in train stations in London or France?

Boston was not a suicide bombing. A suicide bombing is obviously a political act on that aspect alone. Israel and London are places used to terrorism anyway. I don't know what you refer to in France.

You say to yourself that a building in NYC represents Capitalism and is a valid target, but an annual event in Boston isn't. That makes no sense at all. You're ignoring the facts that are right in front of your eyes because of some slanted mindset.

Once again for the eighth time: what does a foot race represent?

We know what the Pentagon represents.
We know what the World Trade Center represented.
We know what an abortion clinic represents.
We know what a lesbian bar represents.
We know what a federal building represents.

Then there's the Boston Marathon ......

It represents American culture.

Guess that's not a good enough message for you.

 

[Pogo]

We immediately knew the bombing in Boston was terrorism. It didn't matter at the time who did it, because it was clear the purpose was to kill or maim innocent civilians. Then later we discovered that a couple of Chechnyan brothers carried it out......the message was obvious. You just don't agree it was a message of any kind.

Sorry, that's entirely wishful thinking and historical revision. All we knew was that bombs had gone off. "Terrorism" wasn't applied until much later, and then only by partisans trying to make fear points (which of course sells papers). So your original point that CNN was "not honest" by failing to call it terrorism shoots itself in the foot. What CNN was guilty of was not milking the opportunity to spike its ratings by selling fear. But as the ratings tell us, they're not the most astute at figuring out there's gold in them thar ills.

Unfortunately terrorism isn't the only explanation for an event like that; there are assholes psychopaths who will commit random violence on random people, with no political message at all. Does the name Adam Lanza not ring a bell? Was that terrorism? No. Why not? No message. Same thing.

Had the target been a military base, or an abortion clinic, the message would have been self-explanatory. I ask again, to the same anticipated crickets: what's the message in bombing a foot race? "Walk don't run"? Without a message and as well absent any public missive assigning a motive, we don't have an act of terrorism. We have random violence by psychopathic assholes.



Boston was not a suicide bombing. A suicide bombing is obviously a political act on that aspect alone. Israel and London are places used to terrorism anyway. I don't know what you refer to in France.

You say to yourself that a building in NYC represents Capitalism and is a valid target, but an annual event in Boston isn't. That makes no sense at all. You're ignoring the facts that are right in front of your eyes because of some slanted mindset.

Once again for the eighth time: what does a foot race represent?

We know what the Pentagon represents.
We know what the World Trade Center represented.
We know what an abortion clinic represents.
We know what a lesbian bar represents.
We know what a federal building represents.

Then there's the Boston Marathon ......

It represents American culture.

Guess that's not a good enough message for you.

It's Greek.

 

[Pogo]

And yet, oddly, the Boston Marathon bombing is still undeniably terrorism.

Not undeniable at all. I've been doing it as a tangent here without breaking a sweat.
Feel free to assume the burden of proof. You'll need something stronger than the word "undeniably".

Not really seeing the point in bothering, actually.

Me neither. As noted already, it's not possible to fit within the definition. I don't know why it goes on. Mud can't give up even when he doesn't have an answer.

For those who ventured in fewer than a hundred pages ago, all this Boston blather is a reference to Mudwhistle's claim that CNN was "not honest" because it didn't call the Boston bombing "terrorism". To which my rejoinder is basically, "no shit".

 

[Pogo]

So it was terrorism because a federal building was bombed but it wasn't terrorism because a large spectator event was bombed?

I'm not following the logic.

A Spanish station was bombed in 2007. What was that?

"A Spanish station"?
No idea what the fuck you're talking about. Radio station? Train station?

A federal building represents the federal government. A foot race represents what?

Spanish train station.

Then I think you mean 2004. If so, in that instance al Qaeda did claim responsibility, which as also noted before is what has to be done if the target doesn't make it obvious. Same with the Bali nightclub. The Badenov Brothers proffered no such claim.

 

[Pogo]

We immediately knew the bombing in Boston was terrorism. It didn't matter at the time who did it, because it was clear the purpose was to kill or maim innocent civilians. Then later we discovered that a couple of Chechnyan brothers carried it out......the message was obvious. You just don't agree it was a message of any kind.

Sorry, that's entirely wishful thinking and historical revision. All we knew was that bombs had gone off. "Terrorism" wasn't applied until much later, and then only by partisans trying to make fear points (which of course sells papers). So your original point that CNN was "not honest" by failing to call it terrorism shoots itself in the foot. What CNN was guilty of was not milking the opportunity to spike its ratings by selling fear. But as the ratings tell us, they're not the most astute at figuring out there's gold in them thar ills.

Unfortunately terrorism isn't the only explanation for an event like that; there are assholes psychopaths who will commit random violence on random people, with no political message at all. Does the name Adam Lanza not ring a bell? Was that terrorism? No. Why not? No message. Same thing.

Had the target been a military base, or an abortion clinic, the message would have been self-explanatory. I ask again, to the same anticipated crickets: what's the message in bombing a foot race? "Walk don't run"? Without a message and as well absent any public missive assigning a motive, we don't have an act of terrorism. We have random violence by psychopathic assholes.



Boston was not a suicide bombing. A suicide bombing is obviously a political act on that aspect alone. Israel and London are places used to terrorism anyway. I don't know what you refer to in France.

You say to yourself that a building in NYC represents Capitalism and is a valid target, but an annual event in Boston isn't. That makes no sense at all. You're ignoring the facts that are right in front of your eyes because of some slanted mindset.

Once again for the eighth time: what does a foot race represent?

We know what the Pentagon represents.
We know what the World Trade Center represented.
We know what an abortion clinic represents.
We know what a lesbian bar represents.
We know what a federal building represents.

Then there's the Boston Marathon ......

What did the 1996 Olympics represent? What did Pan Am flight 103 represent? Your logic doesn't work here.

Good points. Without a claim of responsibility, and they're obviously not symbolic targets, these two cannot be called terrorism either. The Olympics event is kind of synonymous with a foot race; represents nothing but athleticism. Actually since it represents international athleticism, Rudolph's point is completely elusive. But neither of these bombings conveyed the message "don't compete in athletics" or "don't fly".

 

[whitehall]

The word "media" might be included in the name of the tax exempt left wing propaganda source but Media Matters isn't part of the media. It can't be by law because it is considered (God only knows why) to be an education entity. Media Matters is the brains behind all the empty headed blogs (and networks) that give daily talking points to the low information left wing.

 

[asterism]

Sorry, that's entirely wishful thinking and historical revision. All we knew was that bombs had gone off. "Terrorism" wasn't applied until much later, and then only by partisans trying to make fear points (which of course sells papers). So your original point that CNN was "not honest" by failing to call it terrorism shoots itself in the foot. What CNN was guilty of was not milking the opportunity to spike its ratings by selling fear. But as the ratings tell us, they're not the most astute at figuring out there's gold in them thar ills.

Unfortunately terrorism isn't the only explanation for an event like that; there are assholes psychopaths who will commit random violence on random people, with no political message at all. Does the name Adam Lanza not ring a bell? Was that terrorism? No. Why not? No message. Same thing.

Had the target been a military base, or an abortion clinic, the message would have been self-explanatory. I ask again, to the same anticipated crickets: what's the message in bombing a foot race? "Walk don't run"? Without a message and as well absent any public missive assigning a motive, we don't have an act of terrorism. We have random violence by psychopathic assholes.



Boston was not a suicide bombing. A suicide bombing is obviously a political act on that aspect alone. Israel and London are places used to terrorism anyway. I don't know what you refer to in France.



Once again for the eighth time: what does a foot race represent?

We know what the Pentagon represents.
We know what the World Trade Center represented.
We know what an abortion clinic represents.
We know what a lesbian bar represents.
We know what a federal building represents.

Then there's the Boston Marathon ......

What did the 1996 Olympics represent? What did Pan Am flight 103 represent? Your logic doesn't work here.

Good points. Without a claim of responsibility, and they're obviously not symbolic targets, these two cannot be called terrorism either. The Olympics event is kind of synonymous with a foot race; represents nothing but athleticism. Actually since it represents international athleticism, Rudolph's point is completely elusive. But neither of these bombings conveyed the message "don't compete in athletics" or "don't fly".

That's why I don't think your logic fits.

The Boston Marathon bombers just weren't that good at getting their message out, perhaps because they were identified and pursued so quickly.

The goal of Al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups is to make their political statement by causing chaos, security issues, and fear. The Boston Marathon bombings certainly did that - perhaps not as much as hoped by the terrorists though.