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

[aleks.iv]

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.

There is also a video but can `t put enough posts

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Any discussion of what is identified as a terrorist act would benefit from an understanding of the term, which seems to be in short supply here.

The following is straight from the FBI website:

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

No universally accepted definition, certainly, but the U.S. government's way of defining and dealing with terrorism would seem to have some relevance to a discussion about potentially terrorist acts in the U.S., would it not? The above definition is pretty solid by any yardstick.

In this light, when looking at the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, Tucson, Aurora, etc. it might be good to ask if the violence of those actions were: a) intended to coerce or intimidate the U.S. government or civilian population AND b) were they in furtherance of a political or social objective?

A notable factor in the FBI's definition is the absence of a need for organizational involvement or support. There is no mention of it. Therefore, a terrorist act may be carried out by a lone radical or an organized movement.

Further, the mental health of the individual(s) involved is not a qualifying factor, and is therefore incidental. An insane person can intend to coerce or intimidate a government or it's population in furtherance of a political or social objective as can a person in reasonable control of his/her faculties.

Beyond that, isn't most of the activity in this thread really just people spouting off about what they personally think terrorism is?

 

[Circe]

Any discussion of what is identified as a terrorist act would benefit from an understanding of the term, which seems to be in short supply here.

The following is straight from the FBI website:

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

No universally accepted definition, certainly, but the U.S. government's way of defining and dealing with terrorism would seem to have some relevance to a discussion about potentially terrorist acts in the U.S., would it not? The above definition is pretty solid by any yardstick.

In this light, when looking at the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, Tucson, Aurora, etc. it might be good to ask if the violence of those actions were: a) intended to coerce or intimidate the U.S. government or civilian population AND b) were they in furtherance of a political or social objective?

A notable factor in the FBI's definition is the absence of a need for organizational involvement or support. There is no mention of it. Therefore, a terrorist act may be carried out by a lone radical or an organized movement.

Further, the mental health of the individual(s) involved is not a qualifying factor, and is therefore incidental. An insane person can intend to coerce or intimidate a government or it's population in furtherance of a political or social objective as can a person in reasonable control of his/her faculties.

Beyond that, isn't most of the activity in this thread really just people spouting off about what they personally think terrorism is?

Maybe, but why shouldn't we try to define terrorism? It's extremely important as it increases and changes all around us: people are dying, getting their legs cut off, dozens of them! This is really important to figure out.

I like your point about insanity not mattering, at least if they can walk and talk (some crazies are too disabled even to sit up, so they aren't able to do terrorism). That's basically what our criminal justice system has decided after John Hinckley shot Reagan. You might say that was terrorism! Or political assassination --- except he did it to impress Jody Foster only, and it was proved his brain was shrunken in classic schizophrenia. They put Hinckley in a mental hospital for life but stopped accepting insanity defenses, for the most part. I think that works. People can be as crazy as they like, but they still don't get to kill people and get off.


Okay, your necessary terrorism definition says it has to be in furtherance of a political or social objective. But they aren't --- ever, really. What was Hasan's objective in his Fort Hood "Allahu Akbar" shooting? One can't imagine what point it had. What was Timothy McVeigh's objective? What was the Chechen political objective in blowing up a 26.2 mile footrace? None of these acts make any actual SENSE. What are they FOR??

They stand alone. They weren't "for" anything. They weren't supposed to accomplish anything. They were just blowing up for the sake of blowing up, like an Xbox video game.

Useful post of yours, thanks.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Any discussion of what is identified as a terrorist act would benefit from an understanding of the term, which seems to be in short supply here.

The following is straight from the FBI website:

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

No universally accepted definition, certainly, but the U.S. government's way of defining and dealing with terrorism would seem to have some relevance to a discussion about potentially terrorist acts in the U.S., would it not? The above definition is pretty solid by any yardstick.

In this light, when looking at the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, Tucson, Aurora, etc. it might be good to ask if the violence of those actions were: a) intended to coerce or intimidate the U.S. government or civilian population AND b) were they in furtherance of a political or social objective?

A notable factor in the FBI's definition is the absence of a need for organizational involvement or support. There is no mention of it. Therefore, a terrorist act may be carried out by a lone radical or an organized movement.

Further, the mental health of the individual(s) involved is not a qualifying factor, and is therefore incidental. An insane person can intend to coerce or intimidate a government or it's population in furtherance of a political or social objective as can a person in reasonable control of his/her faculties.

Beyond that, isn't most of the activity in this thread really just people spouting off about what they personally think terrorism is?

Maybe, but why shouldn't we try to define terrorism? It's extremely important as it increases and changes all around us: people are dying, getting their legs cut off, dozens of them! This is really important to figure out.

I like your point about insanity not mattering, at least if they can walk and talk (some crazies are too disabled even to sit up, so they aren't able to do terrorism). That's basically what our criminal justice system has decided after John Hinckley shot Reagan. You might say that was terrorism! Or political assassination --- except he did it to impress Jody Foster only, and it was proved his brain was shrunken in classic schizophrenia. They put Hinckley in a mental hospital for life but stopped accepting insanity defenses, for the most part. I think that works. People can be as crazy as they like, but they still don't get to kill people and get off.


Okay, your necessary terrorism definition says it has to be in furtherance of a political or social objective. But they aren't --- ever, really. What was Hasan's objective in his Fort Hood "Allahu Akbar" shooting? One can't imagine what point it had. What was Timothy McVeigh's objective? What was the Chechen political objective in blowing up a 26.2 mile footrace? None of these acts make any actual SENSE. What are they FOR??

They stand alone. They weren't "for" anything. They weren't supposed to accomplish anything. They were just blowing up for the sake of blowing up, like an Xbox video game.

Useful post of yours, thanks.

Thanks for you post, Circe. I've noted your thoughtful posts earlier in the thread. It's challenging to maintain a critical thought process in a reactionary environment such as this, and I appreciate your efforts.

Your input is noted. However, I think it is important to set the boundaries of terrorism. Most of the content of this thread is largely "terrorism is this" or "terrorism is that," with plenty of the usual "you're a moron" thrown in by the hacks that frequent the board. So be it, but if a discussion is to take place that has any meaning, it must be done. I present the FBI's definition, which I think is pretty clear cut, but which also acknowledges that definitions are challenging.

Of greater importance is the issue of responsible journalism, which is largely to blame for this flexibility in what gets identified as terrorism. Too much ambiguity and the word itself becomes meaningless. I'm doing my best to ground the conversation. I've done so multiple times in this thread, which mostly goes unnoticed because the aforementioned hacks aren't interested in understanding. That interferes with their partisan hackery.

The aspect of coercion is particularly important. Yes, you are right that anybody can be terrified by an act of violence, but as far as the general understanding of terrorism is involved, there must be an attempt an coercion involved. If I set off a bomb at a sporting event because of the thrill of it, that is terrifying, but because I am not intending to coerce anybody, it is not terrorism. On the other had, a man can terrorize a woman who is his object of desire by non-violent means (stalking, intimidating messages, etc.) and because the actions are meant to coerce the victim, it is terrorism. I think this distinction is vitally important to any discussion on the topic. Can it still get hazy? Absolutely.

No definition of terrorism if perfect, but if there is going to be any usefulness to the term as it pertains to identifying it and attempting to apply concepts of legal justice to it, I think the FBI's definition presented is probably better than most.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Oh, and one other note, coercion alone is sometimes not enough. My holding a gun to a hapless victim may be intended as coercion to relieve them of their wallet, but minus some kind of political or social objective, it also falls short of terrorism. I think anybody here would agree that armed robbery could not be stretched into being defined as terrorism. And so the presence of some kind of political or social agenda is an important factor. I re-read my post and realized I was being rather incomplete.

 

[Circe]

Your input is noted. However, I think it is important to set the boundaries of terrorism. Most of the content of this thread is largely "terrorism is this" or "terrorism is that," with plenty of the usual "you're a moron" thrown in by the hacks that frequent the board. So be it, but if a discussion is to take place that has any meaning, it must be done. I present the FBI's definition, which I think is pretty clear cut, but which also acknowledges that definitions are challenging.

Of greater importance is the issue of responsible journalism, which is largely to blame for this flexibility in what gets identified as terrorism. Too much ambiguity and the word itself becomes meaningless. I'm doing my best to ground the conversation. I've done so multiple times in this thread, which mostly goes unnoticed because the aforementioned hacks aren't interested in understanding. That interferes with their partisan hackery.

The aspect of coercion is particularly important. Yes, you are right that anybody can be terrified by an act of violence, but as far as the general understanding of terrorism is involved, there must be an attempt an coercion involved. If I set off a bomb at a sporting event because of the thrill of it, that is terrifying, but because I am not intending to coerce anybody, it is not terrorism. On the other had, a man can terrorize a woman who is his object of desire by non-violent means (stalking, intimidating messages, etc.) and because the actions are meant to coerce the victim, it is terrorism. I think this distinction is vitally important to any discussion on the topic. Can it still get hazy? Absolutely.

No definition of terrorism if perfect, but if there is going to be any usefulness to the term as it pertains to identifying it and attempting to apply concepts of legal justice to it, I think the FBI's definition presented is probably better than most.

Good, let's talk about coercion, then --- I agree that the rise in a lot of new kinds of violence in this society (and others) is so alarming that it needs thought, or at least I sure need to think it through.

I gather that "coercion" is your servicable shorthand for the FBI terrorism definition. You ask, "when looking at the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, Tucson, Aurora, etc. it might be good to ask if the violence of those actions were: a) intended to coerce or intimidate the U.S. government or civilian population AND b) were they in furtherance of a political or social objective?"

What is it FOR, what it is supposed to ACCOMPLISH? I am coming to realize in horror that despite America being a saving-up, work-ethic, defer-gratification society, a lot of this new violence is not FOR any expected or hoped future purpose. It's thrill killing for the moment, like an orgasm. It is we who keep expecting it's for a purpose: the killers are just having a thrill, or expending an orgiastic catharsis of anger.

Acts of war tend to have a point, they are trying to accomplish something. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor meant to clear us out of the Pacific and leave it to them to take over; the al Qaeda attack on New York was for clearing us out of the Mideast so bin Laden could take over and presumably become Caliph.

But none, NONE of the violence we see here has any point! I guess I am coming to think there is no such thing as "terrorism." It's ALL thrill killing by screwups and crazies.

What did Hasan shoot up Fort Hood FOR? The thrill of his anger: otherwise, it furthered nothing at all. What did Harris and Klebold get out of shooting up Columbine? They are known to have been in an orgiastic state of ecstasy in the library, saying how much fun they were having shooting people, then they shot themselves.

It's so hard to tell apart thrill shooters from "terrorists" that I wonder why we bother. I'm not going to bother anymore. The Boston Marathon bombers didn't have a purpose: the bombs weren't FOR anything, except they wanted to blow people up. There was probably the usual bottled-up anger under the older one. In any case, they killed fewer than most of the school and movie-type shooter killers, so there's nothing special about that, either.

I'm convinced it's the videogames. I play them myself quite a lot and the violence is a lot of fun. Like porn used to be thought of as causing rape because some people escalate into real life, I think that's what happens: people with weak minds play the games, then they want to do it real.

 

[Circe]

Oh, and one other note, coercion alone is sometimes not enough. My holding a gun to a hapless victim may be intended as coercion to relieve them of their wallet, but minus some kind of political or social objective, it also falls short of terrorism. I think anybody here would agree that armed robbery could not be stretched into being defined as terrorism. And so the presence of some kind of political or social agenda is an important factor. I re-read my post and realized I was being rather incomplete.

Yeah, armed robbery and rape are beginning to seem so SANE to me --- they have an actual point, the robbers are trying to get money or liquor or sex. It's all purposeful. Their action has a point.

Whereas Timothy McVeigh didn't get nothing.....except the electric chair. The Unabomber didn't get ANYthing; except presumably a momentary thrill when he sent off another letter bomb or read about the injuries in the paper, if he even got a paper in his tiny shack.


It's the pointlessness that is the problem.

 

[Pogo]

Your input is noted. However, I think it is important to set the boundaries of terrorism. Most of the content of this thread is largely "terrorism is this" or "terrorism is that," with plenty of the usual "you're a moron" thrown in by the hacks that frequent the board. So be it, but if a discussion is to take place that has any meaning, it must be done. I present the FBI's definition, which I think is pretty clear cut, but which also acknowledges that definitions are challenging.

Of greater importance is the issue of responsible journalism, which is largely to blame for this flexibility in what gets identified as terrorism. Too much ambiguity and the word itself becomes meaningless. I'm doing my best to ground the conversation. I've done so multiple times in this thread, which mostly goes unnoticed because the aforementioned hacks aren't interested in understanding. That interferes with their partisan hackery.

The aspect of coercion is particularly important. Yes, you are right that anybody can be terrified by an act of violence, but as far as the general understanding of terrorism is involved, there must be an attempt an coercion involved. If I set off a bomb at a sporting event because of the thrill of it, that is terrifying, but because I am not intending to coerce anybody, it is not terrorism. On the other had, a man can terrorize a woman who is his object of desire by non-violent means (stalking, intimidating messages, etc.) and because the actions are meant to coerce the victim, it is terrorism. I think this distinction is vitally important to any discussion on the topic. Can it still get hazy? Absolutely.

No definition of terrorism if perfect, but if there is going to be any usefulness to the term as it pertains to identifying it and attempting to apply concepts of legal justice to it, I think the FBI's definition presented is probably better than most.

Good, let's talk about coercion, then --- I agree that the rise in a lot of new kinds of violence in this society (and others) is so alarming that it needs thought, or at least I sure need to think it through.

I gather that "coercion" is your servicable shorthand for the FBI terrorism definition. You ask, "when looking at the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, Tucson, Aurora, etc. it might be good to ask if the violence of those actions were: a) intended to coerce or intimidate the U.S. government or civilian population AND b) were they in furtherance of a political or social objective?"

What is it FOR, what it is supposed to ACCOMPLISH? I am coming to realize in horror that despite America being a saving-up, work-ethic, defer-gratification society, a lot of this new violence is not FOR any expected or hoped future purpose. It's thrill killing for the moment, like an orgasm. It is we who keep expecting it's for a purpose: the killers are just having a thrill, or expending an orgiastic catharsis of anger.

Acts of war tend to have a point, they are trying to accomplish something. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor meant to clear us out of the Pacific and leave it to them to take over; the al Qaeda attack on New York was for clearing us out of the Mideast so bin Laden could take over and presumably become Caliph.

But none, NONE of the violence we see here has any point! I guess I am coming to think there is no such thing as "terrorism." It's ALL thrill killing by screwups and crazies.

What did Hasan shoot up Fort Hood FOR? The thrill of his anger: otherwise, it furthered nothing at all. What did Harris and Klebold get out of shooting up Columbine? They are known to have been in an orgiastic state of ecstasy in the library, saying how much fun they were having shooting people, then they shot themselves.

It's so hard to tell apart thrill shooters from "terrorists" that I wonder why we bother. I'm not going to bother anymore. The Boston Marathon bombers didn't have a purpose: the bombs weren't FOR anything, except they wanted to blow people up. There was probably the usual bottled-up anger under the older one. In any case, they killed fewer than most of the school and movie-type shooter killers, so there's nothing special about that, either.

I'm convinced it's the videogames. I play them myself quite a lot and the violence is a lot of fun. Like porn used to be thought of as causing rape because some people escalate into real life, I think that's what happens: people with weak minds play the games, then they want to do it real.

Your thought process is astute. Yes, there is a whole lotta sensory self-gratification goin' on. I keep making that point about gun massacres, that they're not out for "murder" but for "carnage" -- the physical experience of being in a perverse power position. That seems to apply to Harris/Klebold, Lanza, Holmes, and to these guys in Boston, since there's no real point being made to the public and the victims are random.

I'm not sure I can agree that video games are a causality. I'd like to, because it seems to make sense, but data from other places doesn't support it. Having said that though, I can't believe they don't desensitize their users to the "smell" of blood.

Actually before we even get to video games we're already desensitized from the same incessant theme that is the lifeblood (irony intended) of television and Hollywood. And even roadkill. Jesse Ventura likes to note that there has been no time in his lifetime (he was born in 1951) when this country was not at war somewhere. We are a culture that celebrates death, and then we go scratching our heads when one of us takes the sacrament. We really shouldn't be surprised when somebody overdoses on the culture.

 

[Pogo]

Oh, and one other note, coercion alone is sometimes not enough. My holding a gun to a hapless victim may be intended as coercion to relieve them of their wallet, but minus some kind of political or social objective, it also falls short of terrorism. I think anybody here would agree that armed robbery could not be stretched into being defined as terrorism. And so the presence of some kind of political or social agenda is an important factor. I re-read my post and realized I was being rather incomplete.

Yeah, armed robbery and rape are beginning to seem so SANE to me --- they have an actual point, the robbers are trying to get money or liquor or sex. It's all purposeful. Their action has a point.

Whereas Timothy McVeigh didn't get nothing.....except the electric chair. The Unabomber didn't get ANYthing; except presumably a momentary thrill when he sent off another letter bomb or read about the injuries in the paper, if he even got a paper in his tiny shack.


It's the pointlessness that is the problem.

These may not be good examples. Kaczynski did get something: his manifesto published. He may not have swayed anybody but he definitely had a point. McVeigh had one too, in his own mind; he thought the act would spur a kind of revolution against the government, believing his fringe philosophy was much more widespread than it is. Both of them were swimming in the isolated strains of extremism in which they immersed themselves, but they did have points in their own thinking. Kaczynski even told the New York Times he would stop the bombing if they published the manifesto. Coercion doesn't get more explicit than that.

None of that was true though in Aurora or Columbine or Newtown. That's just carnage for the sake of carnage.

 

[Circe]

Oh, and one other note, coercion alone is sometimes not enough. My holding a gun to a hapless victim may be intended as coercion to relieve them of their wallet, but minus some kind of political or social objective, it also falls short of terrorism. I think anybody here would agree that armed robbery could not be stretched into being defined as terrorism. And so the presence of some kind of political or social agenda is an important factor. I re-read my post and realized I was being rather incomplete.

Yeah, armed robbery and rape are beginning to seem so SANE to me --- they have an actual point, the robbers are trying to get money or liquor or sex. It's all purposeful. Their action has a point.

Whereas Timothy McVeigh didn't get nothing.....except the electric chair. The Unabomber didn't get ANYthing; except presumably a momentary thrill when he sent off another letter bomb or read about the injuries in the paper, if he even got a paper in his tiny shack.


It's the pointlessness that is the problem.

These may not be good examples. Kaczynski did get something: his manifesto published. He may not have swayed anybody but he definitely had a point. McVeigh had one too, in his own mind; he thought the act would spur a kind of revolution against the government, believing his fringe philosophy was much more widespread than it is. Both of them were swimming in the isolated strains of extremism in which they immersed themselves, but they did have points in their own thinking. Kaczynski even told the New York Times he would stop the bombing if they published the manifesto. Coercion doesn't get more explicit than that.

None of that was true though in Aurora or Columbine or Newtown. That's just carnage for the sake of carnage.

Okay, you are right, certainly about Kaczynski. I followed that case carefully when it broke: he did very much want his Manifesto published (and that's how his brother identified him: he recognized his style of writing). McVeigh was much the same, I guess, in that he had no followers or supporters except the one guy who's in prison now, but IIRC he was into the Ruby Ridge/David Koresh indignation some of these types get into.

Okay, McVeigh wanted a revolution. So did Andre Breivik: he wanted Europeans to rise up and throw out the Muslims. Their acts were no more effective than the anarchists who threw bombs into crowds. The anarchists did have a political point when they killed heads of state -- they wanted no hierarchy, so they killed the hierarchy people! It was still ineffective, but they did a lot of this, they had a group -- I could call that real terrorism, most of it (but the assassination of the 60-year-old Empress of Austria in 1898 was just thrill-killing, I've seen the triumphant, strutting pictures of the supposed anarchist in custody -- he was really getting off on it.).

Well, how crazy do you have to be before it's not reasonable to call bombings and assassinations terrorism? If somebody has a completely delusional political idea, is all alone with his tinfoil hat cooking up explosives, and his bombing has no effect at all on his political goal, because his goal is crazy, is that really political terrorism?

I have seen in 25-30 years several psychos talk about Bush and Queen Elizabeth being related and in a worldwide conspiracy to sell mind-controlling drugs: that's a lot more common a communal delusion than you may think. I have seen people who believe in aliens called "Reptiloids" who are trying to take over this planet. If these types throw bombs into racetrack crowds or a state fair, is it really terrorism?

It seems to me it has to make some sort of sense and be in the cause of getting some sort of specific result, plausibly. Like Kaczinsky getting his Manifesto published, or the anarchists actually killing a lot of the hierarchy they hated.

I don't deny McVeigh and Breivik had some half-baked political ideas, but their acts could not plausibly have effected what they wanted. That makes them just crazy, in my opinion.

 

[Pop23]

Kaczinsky, McVeigh and the Boston bombers all had plans to inflict terror on the entire country. In all three cases they planned on surviving the initial attack and possibly continuing on the same course. All wanted their cause to get publicity. All succeeded in that.

The others simply wanted to kill. They had no higher motive, just blood.

Terrorism vs. Insane criminal acts.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

 

[Circe]

Kaczinsky, McVeigh and the Boston bombers all had plans to inflict terror on the entire country. In all three cases they planned on surviving the initial attack and possibly continuing on the same course. All wanted their cause to get publicity. All succeeded in that.

The others simply wanted to kill. They had no higher motive, just blood.

Terrorism vs. Insane criminal acts.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

I don't think the Boston bombers had any sort of plan that made sense or had goals. Their idea was just to bop around bombing. They decided after the first bombing to go to New York and party and bomb some more in Times Square.

No politics, no idea, no aim, no goal ---- just blowing up people for the hell of it. They didn't HAVE a cause. Bombing a footrace wouldn't help a cause. Something was just very, very wrong with their heads, IMO.

 

[Circe]

I keep making that point about gun massacres, that they're not out for "murder" but for "carnage" -- the physical experience of being in a perverse power position. That seems to apply to Harris/Klebold, Lanza, Holmes, and to these guys in Boston, since there's no real point being made to the public and the victims are random.

I'm not sure I can agree that video games are a causality. I'd like to, because it seems to make sense, but data from other places doesn't support it. Having said that though, I can't believe they don't desensitize their users to the "smell" of blood.

That's it --- a "perverse power position," as you say. I'm desperate to find explanatory concepts because we are certainly in an epidemic of these actions and until we have a name, concepts, we cannot think about this problem in any way that makes sense. We are in danger of politicizing something that isn't about politics, perhaps. God knows we've got troubles enough with Muslims rising around the world, but this feels different even when sometimes Muslims DO it.

Have you gotten into video game playing? I have, many hours a week, what can I say. I don't play the male first person shooters like Halo, but I'm playing Assassin's Creed II right now, 55 hours in, and there's a LOT of non-gun violence. It's very, very seductive. Tremendously addictive. I particularly like throwing knives at the roof guards or assassinating using the poison dagger (women's weapon is poison, they say.......). It's training, it's desensitization, I can feel it.

Sure, "perverse power position" is a good term for what I feel and what maybe these mad bombers and shooters feel in real life. Now, I'm not, pray God, ever going to take this feeling of power into real life, unless I'm attacked in my home, but I do think it has a psychological effect, just as Army training does.

 

[Pop23]

Kaczinsky, McVeigh and the Boston bombers all had plans to inflict terror on the entire country. In all three cases they planned on surviving the initial attack and possibly continuing on the same course. All wanted their cause to get publicity. All succeeded in that.

The others simply wanted to kill. They had no higher motive, just blood.

Terrorism vs. Insane criminal acts.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

I don't think the Boston bombers had any sort of plan that made sense or had goals. Their idea was just to bop around bombing. They decided after the first bombing to go to New York and party and bomb some more in Times Square.

No politics, no idea, no aim, no goal ---- just blowing up people for the hell of it. They didn't HAVE a cause. Bombing a footrace wouldn't help a cause. Something was just very, very wrong with their heads, IMO.

I would disagree with you on a few points, not that I disagree with everything, just some food for thought.

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.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, armed robbery and rape are beginning to seem so SANE to me --- they have an actual point, the robbers are trying to get money or liquor or sex. It's all purposeful. Their action has a point.

Whereas Timothy McVeigh didn't get nothing.....except the electric chair. The Unabomber didn't get ANYthing; except presumably a momentary thrill when he sent off another letter bomb or read about the injuries in the paper, if he even got a paper in his tiny shack.


It's the pointlessness that is the problem.

These may not be good examples. Kaczynski did get something: his manifesto published. He may not have swayed anybody but he definitely had a point. McVeigh had one too, in his own mind; he thought the act would spur a kind of revolution against the government, believing his fringe philosophy was much more widespread than it is. Both of them were swimming in the isolated strains of extremism in which they immersed themselves, but they did have points in their own thinking. Kaczynski even told the New York Times he would stop the bombing if they published the manifesto. Coercion doesn't get more explicit than that.

None of that was true though in Aurora or Columbine or Newtown. That's just carnage for the sake of carnage.

Okay, you are right, certainly about Kaczynski. I followed that case carefully when it broke: he did very much want his Manifesto published (and that's how his brother identified him: he recognized his style of writing). McVeigh was much the same, I guess, in that he had no followers or supporters except the one guy who's in prison now, but IIRC he was into the Ruby Ridge/David Koresh indignation some of these types get into.

Okay, McVeigh wanted a revolution. So did Andre Breivik: he wanted Europeans to rise up and throw out the Muslims. Their acts were no more effective than the anarchists who threw bombs into crowds. The anarchists did have a political point when they killed heads of state -- they wanted no hierarchy, so they killed the hierarchy people! It was still ineffective, but they did a lot of this, they had a group -- I could call that real terrorism, most of it (but the assassination of the 60-year-old Empress of Austria in 1898 was just thrill-killing, I've seen the triumphant, strutting pictures of the supposed anarchist in custody -- he was really getting off on it.).

Well, how crazy do you have to be before it's not reasonable to call bombings and assassinations terrorism? If somebody has a completely delusional political idea, is all alone with his tinfoil hat cooking up explosives, and his bombing has no effect at all on his political goal, because his goal is crazy, is that really political terrorism?

I have seen in 25-30 years several psychos talk about Bush and Queen Elizabeth being related and in a worldwide conspiracy to sell mind-controlling drugs: that's a lot more common a communal delusion than you may think. I have seen people who believe in aliens called "Reptiloids" who are trying to take over this planet. If these types throw bombs into racetrack crowds or a state fair, is it really terrorism?

It seems to me it has to make some sort of sense and be in the cause of getting some sort of specific result, plausibly. Like Kaczinsky getting his Manifesto published, or the anarchists actually killing a lot of the hierarchy they hated.

I don't deny McVeigh and Breivik had some half-baked political ideas, but their acts could not plausibly have effected what they wanted. That makes them just crazy, in my opinion.

I don't think "plausible" is a qualifier-- it was obviously "plausible" in their twisted heads, and that's what makes them act.

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.

Boston, I agree, there's no political point unless marathon running is a political act.

 

[Pogo]

Kaczinsky, McVeigh and the Boston bombers all had plans to inflict terror on the entire country. In all three cases they planned on surviving the initial attack and possibly continuing on the same course. All wanted their cause to get publicity. All succeeded in that.

The others simply wanted to kill. They had no higher motive, just blood.

Terrorism vs. Insane criminal acts.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

I don't think the Boston bombers had any sort of plan that made sense or had goals. Their idea was just to bop around bombing. They decided after the first bombing to go to New York and party and bomb some more in Times Square.

No politics, no idea, no aim, no goal ---- just blowing up people for the hell of it. They didn't HAVE a cause. Bombing a footrace wouldn't help a cause. Something was just very, very wrong with their heads, IMO.

I would disagree with you on a few points, not that I disagree with everything, just some food for thought.

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.

"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.

 

[Circe]

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.

 

[Pogo]

I keep making that point about gun massacres, that they're not out for "murder" but for "carnage" -- the physical experience of being in a perverse power position. That seems to apply to Harris/Klebold, Lanza, Holmes, and to these guys in Boston, since there's no real point being made to the public and the victims are random.

I'm not sure I can agree that video games are a causality. I'd like to, because it seems to make sense, but data from other places doesn't support it. Having said that though, I can't believe they don't desensitize their users to the "smell" of blood.

That's it --- a "perverse power position," as you say. I'm desperate to find explanatory concepts because we are certainly in an epidemic of these actions and until we have a name, concepts, we cannot think about this problem in any way that makes sense. We are in danger of politicizing something that isn't about politics, perhaps. God knows we've got troubles enough with Muslims rising around the world, but this feels different even when sometimes Muslims DO it.

Have you gotten into video game playing? I have, many hours a week, what can I say. I don't play the male first person shooters like Halo, but I'm playing Assassin's Creed II right now, 55 hours in, and there's a LOT of non-gun violence. It's very, very seductive. Tremendously addictive. I particularly like throwing knives at the roof guards or assassinating using the poison dagger (women's weapon is poison, they say.......). It's training, it's desensitization, I can feel it.

Sure, "perverse power position" is a good term for what I feel and what maybe these mad bombers and shooters feel in real life. Now, I'm not, pray God, ever going to take this feeling of power into real life, unless I'm attacked in my home, but I do think it has a psychological effect, just as Army training does.

I agree, it must have a psychological effect. No, I don't do games virtually at all. Never got the attraction of them. I'll do a word game or a card game but never been interested in that kind. I rarely go to movies at all because I can't sit and ingest violence, even when it's acted. I'm still haunted by a scene I happened across that somebody else was watching on TV when I walked into the hotel room I was sharing, twenty years ago. So that guy was already desensitized enough to sit and watch it. He probably doesn't even remember the scene- it was maybe 30 seconds. But it's still with me.

We get the death culture thrown at us from every angle every day; war, assaults, TV shows, movies, even our dominant religion, which impales a man on a cross. It's inevitable that we get desensitized when we've disconnected ourselves from our own spirit and live on the emotional angst fantasies that inevitably make money for somebody somewhere.

 

[hoosier88]

...

That's it --- a "perverse power position," as you say. I'm desperate to find explanatory concepts because we are certainly in an epidemic of these actions and until we have a name, concepts, we cannot think about this problem in any way that makes sense. We are in danger of politicizing something that isn't about politics, perhaps. God knows we've got troubles enough with Muslims rising around the world, but this feels different even when sometimes Muslims DO it.

Have you gotten into video game playing? I have, many hours a week, what can I say. I don't play the male first person shooters like Halo, but I'm playing Assassin's Creed II right now, 55 hours in, and there's a LOT of non-gun violence. It's very, very seductive. Tremendously addictive. I particularly like throwing knives at the roof guards or assassinating using the poison dagger (women's weapon is poison, they say.......). It's training, it's desensitization, I can feel it.

Sure, "perverse power position" is a good term for what I feel and what maybe these mad bombers and shooters feel in real life. Now, I'm not, pray God, ever going to take this feeling of power into real life, unless I'm attacked in my home, but I do think it has a psychological effect, just as Army training does.

I agree, it must have a psychological effect. No, I don't do games virtually at all. Never got the attraction of them. I'll do a word game or a card game but never been interested in that kind. I rarely go to movies at all because I can't sit and ingest violence, even when it's acted. I'm still haunted by a scene I happened across that somebody else was watching on TV when I walked into the hotel room I was sharing, twenty years ago. So that guy was already desensitized enough to sit and watch it. He probably doesn't even remember the scene- it was maybe 30 seconds. But it's still with me.

We get the death culture thrown at us from every angle every day; war, assaults, TV shows, movies, even our dominant religion, which impales a man on a cross. It's inevitable that we get desensitized when we've disconnected ourselves from our own spirit and live on the emotional angst fantasies that inevitably make money for somebody somewhere.

(My bold)

Nah, it's not impalement - see Vlad the Impaler. Don't look @ the illustrations, though, if any. It's not for those with queasy stomachs. Our God was crucified, an old Roman punishment.

 

[Circe]

"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.